Interesting Email #2
By Matt Artz
Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm in A's.
With the Fremont Chamber of Commerce moving forward with a 5:30 p.m. pro-Oakland A’s rally Wednesday at the Saddle Rack, chamber member Dirk Lorenz is asking his friends to attend.
But Lorenz is also a Planning Commissioner. And, if the A’s move forward with their Fremont ballpark plan, it will have to go to the commission for review. It seems that Lorenz would be inclined to favor a the team’s project. His email is below.
From: Dirk Lorenz
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:12 PM
To:
Subject: Fw: Message re the A’s! Don’t Let Fremont be Left on the
Bench!Folks… let’s not let history repeat itself. Let’s not let this slip through our fingers. From the standpoint of economic development and jobs in OUR community…plan on attending the Saddlerack event mentioned below. If you want to see the A’s locate in their original Pac Commons site… If you want to see an upscale shopping village with retailers similar to those seen in Santana Row and elsewhere….
this is the event not to be missed. Please spread the word…we want jobs and exciting retail in our community. Remember, a rising tide floats all boats…. this development will bring much more than just what the A’s have planned… successful retail generates sales tax that funds police, fire and maintenance services in our entire community. Please show your support by attending this Saddlerack event! Please pass it on.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
February 20th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Well Dirk, it’s clear that you don’t know the requirements of being a PLANNING COMMISSIONER! Commissioner’s are REQUIRED to not express an opinion – or even form one – until all PUBLIC TESTIMONY is presented to YOU!
Since you have so clearly stated your bias towards this project YOU SHOULD RECUSE YOURSELF FROM VOTING ON THIS PROJECT; if it ever get to the commission.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Wake up Fremont! This is how your City is allowed to be run!
February 20th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Elected and appointed officials often take questionable actions (like the DL email above) but they do so on their own. It’s not an issue of how “the city is allowed to be run”. If the Council doesn’t like the actions of a Planning Commissioner, they can replace him/her.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It will be interesting to see how many members of the COF Planning Commission show up at the Saddlerack event Dirk is talking about. Sounds like he’ll be there for sure.
Dirk, sounds like you’ve been reading the A’s propaganda too. Could you be a bit more specific when you say, “…this development will bring much more than what the A’s have planned.”?
“Much more” is pretty vague.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Wow! Every time I think this is the how low the City government and its officials can go, it goes lower.
The May-err refused to appoint the most qualified candidate for have a position about the A’s. He wanted someone with an “open mind” like Lisa Quan. And what does he say about this? That a current planning commissioner is rallying the troops to be on the side of the A’s who can do so much damage to the City with their proposal.
Isn’t this another example of a systemic problem in Fremont government? Has the City office and council become a group of insiders that have each other’s vested interests and the vested interests of the billionaires who want to bring the stadium here, build it, sell the team and make a lot of money? And in the process loot the public and take over 20% of the remaining open land in Fremont under the guise of “rezoning” the land into their favor? Makes no sense how this can benefit Fremont.
This is looking worse and worse.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Matt, La Boca and Anon,
I shared my personal feelings with a few family members and friends…. and it inadvertently got posted to a neighborhood yahoo group. I am not embarrassed by it, nor do I try to hide it. Additionally, it is NOT wrong for a commissioner or council person to have an opinion regarding the prospect of the A’s coming to Fremont. Yes..in the abstract, I am supportive of any opportunity that COULD lead to jobs, that MIGHT raise revenue to fund services we desperately need and COULD bring a new retail experience to Fremont. I am very capable of acting in an unbiased manor when it comes to this and any other issues for that matter presented to the planning commission. What frustrated me is the city review process is not being allowed to be followed. My feeling is an applicant for any project has the right to present their project for review along with all support documentation/consultants reports. We DO NOT know the positive or negative impact this project might have on our city…but unless we allow the applicant to submit all necessary documentation…they will never get a fair “trial”. I want this city to have the opportunity to have this project presented …and the public review process can begin based on the factual documentation provided. At this point, the applicant could possibly withdraw due to a vocal group who may not represent Fremont as a whole. Some in this group have created a great deal of ill will. Although it does not represent the group as a whole…a friend who recently attended the Irvington farmers market in an A’s jersey was spat upon and received many negative comments while shopping. There is a time and a place for public input in an orderly and controlled manor. In my opinion, the A’s have not gotten a fair trail. They have been “cut off at the knees” so to speak. As it looks now, I may very well have been denied the opportunity, both as a citizen and a planning commissioner, to be able to weigh in on this project to see if it could bring jobs and sales tax dollars to our city, and if it is a good use of the land in Pac Commons. I am not endorsing the project as much as I am voicing my frustration that I may very well never get the chance to do so!
February 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Just a thought – is Lew using the so-called “vocal group …. who have created a great deal of ill will” as an excuse to drop a project he can no longer afford? My understanding from talking to the folks in city hall is that they cancelled the EIR not because of the protests, but because Lew stopped writing the checks to fund it.
And he never did produce any evidence that the project would be financially beneficial to Fremont. On the contrary, the economic study he did produce showed that the jobs created would pay $26k per year and the project as a whole would drain $1M per year from the General Fund.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Mr. Lorenz,
It’s surprising the drivel that you have written.
Yes, the email you wrote to your friends & family became public, but dude….. This response of yours is not good.
The folks who elected mayor wasserman knew they were supporting the Stadium, a weeks after election the proposed location got changed… The new proposed location doesn’t have any of those wonderful shops/ santana row like shopping center..
The A’s knew there would be objection, from the moment they suggested the 30 people invited only meetings. What about the rest of us, who are not well connected..
Have you even read the new proposal?
DUDE…( you should really get your nose grinding )
February 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Mr. Lorenz,
It’s a shame that one spitting incident taints a group of citizens that have acted appropriately to protect their neighborhoods, have studied the financial impact that stadiums have on a cities, and understand the minimal amount of employment opportunities (other then initial construction jobs, which most likely will be filled with non-local residents and disappear after the stadium is completed) not to mention endangering the status of the NUMMI plant and their employees.
When do citizens have a chance to present their side…in 2 minute increments to the city council members after Lew Wolff and his marketing machine has spent months filling their ears with proganda!
Granted many of us were sleeping through the initial discussions about the proposed stadium but we have woken up now. I don’t think we’ll miss out again.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Mr. Lorenz,
I am sorry it is not the frustration that is the problem here.
It is the fact that you are rallying people to come to the cause of the A’s. There is no evidence about your statements, especially about this (quote/unquote):
“this development will bring much more than just
what the A’s have planned… successful retail generates sales tax that funds police, fire and maintenance services in our entire community.”
The readers of this site are very familiar with different opinions of Gus Morrison, who has argued valiantly and logically about the fact that no such thing is ever going to happen.
Let’s talk about facts:
You and the A’s talk about the thousands of jobs they will create, here is details:
1. 13,000 construction jobs ($22 per hour) for two years while the park is built –these jobs are not guaranteed to Fremont residents.
2. There will be some low paying; temporary; part-time; seasonal jobs with concessions, hosting, maintenance, etc. But these jobs will not support a Fremont family.
3. The 432 Full-Time positions for the A’s are currently filled, and will not be new when they move. Their current employees will be able to commute to the new stadium. Further, these jobs only average $26,000 per year; again, not enough to support a Fremont family.
Now contrast this to bringing a business that can generate high paying jobs – like green technology (Tesla Motors – was looking for a site), bio technology (UNIGEN already in Fremont), high-tech (Solyndra, and number of small/medium hightech business on Fremont Boulevard, south). These actually provide jobs for people in Fremont and improve their quality of life (higher pay, lower commute, etc.)
As planning commissioner, we expect you to focus on being creative and consider the demographics of the City you are supposed to be planning. Bring a stadium and hoping it will bring jobs is just plain wishful thinking of the 1990s that hasn’t done anything of that sort. If it has, I am willing to listen to any evidence of where a Stadium was built in an established area of existing residential, business and community properties. Stadiums that are successful were built in desolate areas which does not impact any existing businesses or communities, because they don’t exist yet. In fact, this A’s plan actually drives revenue and high-paying jobs away from Fremont since existing companies that provide these jobs will be forced to move away to a better place.
You talk about funding the police and fire services. By having put the stadium and this project here, we are increasing the load on the already stressed out police and fire forces. Have you heard of “Prevention is better than a Cure?” There seems to be this logic that bring this irresponsible development into Fremont, and then try to justify that by creating more crime and other incidences, we can have a larger police force and fire services. We don’t need that.
Then you go on to say: “Some in this group have created a great deal of ill will.”
If anyone in this city has created any ill will, it is the Mayor and the City Council, and the rest of the administration who have not been open with the public and make us run through hoops to even get basic information and status about different things. Even to get a clarification about the status based on the confusion coming out of the City and the A’s camps took several days and the help of the Media. Not to mention the fact that the A’s and the elected officials used tactics to dupe the public by switching the location to Warm Springs *AFTER* the election. When a few citizens went to the City Council meeting and raised the basic questions, Mr. Wasserman said “It is too premature to comment”. And then 2 days later, the Vice Mayor, Ms. Natarajan is on KCBS in an interview on the site replying to the question from the reporter whether this is going to happen with an “Absolutely!”. If it was too premature for citizens to inquire, is it not premature for the Vice Mayor to give a TV interview and assert that this is going to happen when as you say you want this to be based on factual information. Why cannot the City make any factual information they have available for public scrutiny?
This is not a government that the people can trust because everything that is coming out of it is untrustworthy. So, don’t blame the citizens for holding the government accountable. Do not blame the decent citizens of Fremont for taking issue against the administration which is out of touch with the citizens. This group you are talking about is the citizens of Fremont, i.e. from all over Fremont, not just one location.
This issue is not about Warm Springs or Pacific Commons or the people who have been “vocal” or “local”.
It is about our backyard, and our backyard is called Fremont.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Mr. Lorenz,
You are a public official serving the public. Sending out an e-mail like this shows your true color; you ought to have the courage to resign from your post.
Let the facts do the talking. Don’t just mumbly say what you want, think a bit why you want it at the first place and have the facts to support it. That is Lesson #101 in any class. I assume your teachers must have taught you so before.
What the benefits you described have nothing to do with the Stadium. You can find other developers who could and would do a better job to establish Santana Row like retail/residential mix use areas. You do not need Lew Wolff or A’s to do it. As a matter of fact, all the benefits you “imagine” would be drained by having A’s stadium in Fremont due to the added burden on traffic, safety, emergency handling and crimes. These are the things, you ought to objectively tell Fremont citizens what YOU (as a planning member) plan to do to ensure there would be no negative effect to Fremont. If Lew Wolff can show the facts, no one can defeat him. He is afraid of the truth since there is no truth from his angle. Don’t ever let your personal emotion smear the facts and truth — Lesson #101.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Dirk, You are incredibly arrogant, stupid or both.
You just shot yourselve in the foot! Your Credibility is Officially Zero. Backroom deals, Pro- A’s cheerleading at the SaddleRack, sounds like Chicago style politics. Its time to fall on your sword and resign!
February 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Mr. Lorenz,
Small businesses are fed up with the city planning process. You know better. Get yourself educated with the facts on the A’s before our future generations are stuck with A’s “hidden” subsidies approved by their cronies, Fremont city officials.
Concerned small business owner
February 20th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
City of Fremont’s Planning Commissioner hosts A’s Stadium Rally
This is HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PROJECT BIAS, AND BREAKING OF PUBLIC TRUST.
Has some one informed the TV News Media that Fremont’s Planning Commissioner Dirk Lorez is hosting a Pro-A’s Rally at the Saddlerack along with “A’s anywhere in Fremont” supporter Nina Moore of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce. Look at the time Dirk sent his email 2:12PM. He did this on taxpayer City Time.
I will contact Matier and Ross
matierandross@sfchronicle.com
February 20th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“Look at the time Dirk sent his email 2:12PM. He did this on taxpayer City Time”
PB and small business owner….I own a 2 small businesses in Fremont and do not work for the city.
Noasnowolf…”If Lew Wolff can show the facts, no one can defeat him.”… I’m just interested in giving him the chance to do so.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
What’s that screeching sound? Oh, that’s Dirk throwing it into reverse and trying to back out of the s@%t hold he just fell into.
Congratulations, Dirkie boy. You’ve just become the second most hated official in this town. Quite an accomplishment, given your previous relative anonymity. But Wasserman terms out soon, so you’ve got a real shot at rocketing to first in the not too distant future.
I’m not going to try to dissect all of the things you’ve done wrong here, because others have done a great job of it already, judging by previous posts. Suffice it to say that, if you think the crowds at the protests and at the upcoming 2/24 Commission meeting are off-putting, wait until you see the crowds at the Planning Commission meetings.
BTW, nobody loves the Center Theater more than I do, and I was totally with you on restoring it, but I tell you this now – they can burn that dear old place down for all I care, because I won’t support anything that you’re involved in ever.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Dirk, dude – when you’re so deep in the hole that you can’t see daylight, stop digging.
Lame justifications about e-mail times and how many businesses you own aren’t going to cut it. You just sound sputtery and defensive.
Learn from the professionals – the only acceptable response to a situation like this is “no comment”.
Of course, “I resign” would be good too.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Irvington….
How could you love a venue such as the Center Theater and say “they can burn that dear old place down…” just because someone who loves it equally disagrees with you on an unrelated issue?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I just got it! I knew I’d heard that tune before!
When they asked Rollie Burris who he’d talked to about “pay for play” before Blago appointed him to Obama’s senate seat, he said he “talked to a few friends about it”.
Now you say “I shared my personal feelings with a few family members and friends”.
Nice. Truly there is balance and symmetry in the universe.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Because you’re tainted, Dirk, and I can’t believe anything you say ever again. I can’t trust a person who would do something like this to be involved in, well, anything.
I’m not saying don’t renovate the Center; just that I won’t support it if you’re involved in it. Hey, it’s my call who I choose to support. Sounds like some others feel the same. Deal with it.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Irvington, PB, Small business owner, Green Room… as I have offered in the past…should you ever desire to meet face to face and discuss any issue…. you know who I am and I would welcome a meeting at my coffee shop. I’d even buy the coffee. Yet…no one has ever come out from behind their hiding place. I may disagree with Vinnie, Gus, Doug and Matt from time to time on this blog…but I respect them because they don’t hide behind obscure names on a blog. I will let others reading this make their own judgement about someone who would say such a thing as Irvington did above regarding the Center Theater.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
How many commisioners do we have? To be fair, at least we should have equal number of them on both sides of the issue, not just pro-stadium ones.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Matt; perhaps you and some us should did up some info on “ethics” for Planning Commissioners?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Irvingtons quote:
“BTW, nobody loves the Center Theater more than I do, and I was totally with you on restoring it, but I tell you this now – they can burn that dear old place down for all I care, because I won’t support anything that you’re involved in ever.”
Irvingtons quote:
“I’m not saying don’t renovate the Center; just that I won’t support it if you’re involved in it. Hey, it’s my call who I choose to support.”
I’m confused…do you want to burn it down or renovate it? No matter…I will be involved because I care deeply about the arts in our community and believe it will improve our quality of life. I shared with you in prior blogs a vision for this venue. Your distain for me is apparent…but to allow it to cloud your vision for something that you said you love and that is so good for our neighborhood is just plain repulsive.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Judge on, y’all – unlike Mr. Lorenz, I say what I mean and mean what I say.
As I have explained before, I use Irvington because I grew up in this town, worked for it, and need to preserve some level of social contact with some of the people who may be offended by the truth.
You know, Dirk, using your actual, Christian name is not required by this site. I am quite sure that there are many people like me who are thankful that this site provides them with, not only information, but an opportunity to speak freely without any attendant awkwardness over lunches, during gatherings or meetings. If I want you to know that I’m Irvington, I’ll let you know.
So you respect Gus and Vinnie. Clarify something for me; where was your respect when you sold out the residents of this town to the A’s organization? This probably isn’t the best time to bring up “respect”, in any context. You’re so busted, man.
Thanks for the invitation to meet face-to-face. It has such a charming, “High Noon” quality to it. If I were to accept your invitation, which of your faces should I be looking for?
February 20th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“first time caller…but I’ve had enough”…
February 20th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Mr. Lorenz and Nina Moore have a track history of contributing significantly to this city. They think the A’s will bring good things to Fremont, and it is actually appropriate for Ms. Moore to set up a rally. It’s part of her job, if nothing else.
That said, for the life of me, I don’t know why they think it’s a good idea. And I want to, because I respect them. What I don’t understand is why they don’t confront some of the data and facts that the opponents put out there, with good, reliable facts of their own.
It’s not fair to say ‘wait for the studies’ when Anu N. and Mayor W. publicly are saying they will make it happen. And, as much as I totally respect him and am grateful for his past generosity, it doesn’t help that Mr. Lorenz appears to have made up his mind–if he’s really doing his job on the commission. This mostly concerns me because the Wolffs said publicly they can’t say for sure there will ever be a village, just a stadium…
February 20th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I know you’re confused and repulsed, Dirk. It’s a common side-effect of hard-ball city politics.
You see, y’all made the mistake of waking up the sleeping bear of Fremont residents. We let you all go on your merry way for years, doing pretty much whatever you wanted. But now there’s not just a wonky few watching and wringing their hands over the moral contortions of the Council and the Planning Commission. The regular people are watching too. And they’re pissed.
By way of clarification, “disdain” doesn’t begin to cover it.
How to describe a life-long resident’s feelings for a City official who has sold his soul to interests that will drain the life from Fremont?
I think confused and repulsed are a good start.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I respect Gus and Vinnie because they state their opinions without the cover of an obscure blog name. I have met them on occasion and discussed a few issues…face to face. If you ever take me up on my offer to meet face to face… it will be with a similar respect. No “high noon” qualities to the invite… I put it out there…plain and simple
February 20th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
So let me get real clear on this – you have no respect for anyone on this site who does not use their actual, real, Christian name? Their opinions do not count in Dirk-world?
You know, I didn’t hear any complaints from you about my nom de plume when I was telling you what you wanted to hear about the Center.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It’s apparent by some comments here (“he’s doing it on city time!”), that people don’t quite understand how government and commissions work in Fremont.
Dirk is allowed to have an opinion. Can someone show me in the city charter / laws / state constitution that says appointed and elected officials are not allowed to have an opinion? Isn’t it true that one of the criteria we should be electing people on is who we think they will appoint to important positions?
It’s funny how people can be so nasty on this blog – it shows content of character. I think Dirk posting with his name, willing to discuss issues, defend his position with those who attack him anonymously and personally also shows the quality of his character.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I think we’re getting a pretty clear picture of Dirk’s character, thank you.
Yes, everybody has a right to an opinion.
In my opinion, what Fremont residents have a right to expect from our representatives is that they be able to set aside their opinions and take on an attitude of professional impartiality.
One would hope that their representatives would not become fawning cheerleaders for one side of an issue, in so doing, becoming opponents of any other viewpoint.
Mr. Lorenz has a clear future in politics; he immediately chose to Ignore the giant steamer that just landed in the room and pick on a poster for preserving their anonymity. It’s a classic GOP trick; when you can’t win on the facts, attack the questioner.
And if you think this has been nasty, you haven’t read any of Smalls posts.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Mr. Lorenz, Thank you for your comments.
As a Fremont City Planning Commissioner the Citizens expect each Commissioner to remain objective, unbiased, and impartial particularly on major City planning issues that may come before them. Your behavior, collusion with A’s Lobbyist Nina Moore, and pumping a Pro-A’s Rally at the Saddleback appears to be anything but impartial.
February 20th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Who else was copied on the Nina Moore and Dirk emails. There is never just one cochroach
February 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Certainly Dirk is entitled to his opinion like everybody does.
But as city planning commissioner, organizing a pro-developer party at a bar/night club. Wow!
February 20th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Mr. Lorenz, I hope you will take the time to read #10 comments on this blog. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about the facts that D Alur has mentioned. Do you disagree with anything he has to say? If so, what? Or do you feel he is correct? Thanks. I’ll look forward to your comments.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
I’m personally looking forward to some sort of Sharks-Jets rumble outside Saddle Rack. Bring your dancing shoes.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Marine -
I do hope you’re kidding about the rumble.
Although the effect of the pressure that could be brought to bear upon City Hall through media coverage can’t be ignored, we need to be careful here.
My concerns are, of course, the safety of the anti-stadium people vs the beer-fueled hooligans on the pro side. Having their “rally” at a bar, and one with a recent history of stabbings – GREAT idea. But that’s where their supporters are, I suppose.
I guess we have to do a cost-benefit analysis to see if we will gain more by showing up than we would lose by allowing the pro-stadium people to bask in the media glow on their own, because you can be sure that the A’s will use their influence to have any pro-stadium “rally” televised.
Media coverage is one area that the anti-stadium movement has been lacking, largely due to the flaccid nature of our local newspaper. I’m sure it hasn’t been for lack of trying on the part of the FCN.
In the end, a lot of this would depend on the crowd control skills of Fremont’s finest.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I hope you can find a sense of humor, Irvington.
Seriously, I would like to thank all of you for putting together an entertaining, if not thoroughly frightening, comments thread.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:03 am
Anyone elected or appointed to a governmental position needs to hold an unbiased and professional view of ANY ISSUE that come up to their attention. They NEED to be like an impartial judge that rules based on FACT, not opinion or feelings.
If that is not occurring, then the people deserve to be upset and demand that change occurs.
In this case, it is clear that Dirk has violated a basic principle and should resign from office.
Dirk, do the right thing and resign, effective immediately. You’ve already lost all credibility. Don’t lose your honor, too.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:19 am
ML said: [I’m personally looking forward to some sort of Sharks-Jets rumble outside Saddle Rack.]
A hockey team vs. a football team?
February 21st, 2009 at 8:04 am
Marine Layer -
What is it that you find more “frightening” than Bob Wasserman characterization of the No on A’s group as a “mob” ?
Personally, I find your reference to a “rumble” provocative and one which invites curious and emotional factions from both sides of this debate. . . . . not a wise choice of words at all. . .
Too bad, you’ve done some nice work on this topic but you also clearly now reveal a willingness to provoke or at least to suggest the least-common-denominator (physical violence) if necessary.
Worries about what kind of “fans” the stadium might attract have been, at one level, validated by your statements.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:18 am
It’s unfortunate that my attempt to bring humor and levity into this has gone way over some people’s heads. “West Side Story.” Look it up.
If anti-stadium people decide to protest outside the Saddle Rack, and worse, confront the pro-stadium people, it is in fact the anti-stadium people creating the conflict. Pick and choose your battles wisely, folks.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:36 am
Gee, Marine Layer – i stand corrected. My apology for over reacting. I do remember West Side STory – I think I’ve watched it at least a dozen times. I’m betting at least one of those was while you were still in diapers. . . . . but seemingly, this point isn’t of substance.
Perhaps you’d address the more serious note – with equal furvor – re my question about just what it is you find “frightening” about the posts in this BLOG.
Does Bob W. characterizing the “No on A’s” families as “a mob” also frighten you ?
February 21st, 2009 at 8:39 am
Matt,
Why today’s Argus did not mention the important fact that our city commissioner is hosting the pro-A’s party at SandleRack night club/bar.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:28 am
Ed, I believe the person hosting the pro-A’s event is Nina Moore, not Dirk.
Dictionary.com definition for the word mob:
Hopefully the mayor was thinking of No. 3 (noun).
NOUN
1. a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.
2. a crowd bent on or engaged in lawless violence.
3. any group or collection of persons or things.
4. the common people; the masses; populace or multitude.
5. a criminal gang, esp. one involved in drug trafficking, extortion, etc.
6. the Mob, Mafia (def. 1).
7. Sociology. a group of persons stimulating one another to excitement and losing ordinary rational control over their activity.
8. a flock, herd, or drove of animals: a mob of sheep.
ADJECTIVE
9. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a lawless, irrational, disorderly, or riotous crowd: mob rule; mob instincts.
10. directed at or reflecting the lowest intellectual level of the common people: mob appeal; the mob mentality.
VERB (used with object)
11. to crowd around noisily, as from curiosity or hostility: Spectators mobbed the courtroom.
12. to attack in a riotous mob: The crowd mobbed the consulate.
13. Fox Hunting. to chop (a fox).
February 21st, 2009 at 9:54 am
Of course the mayor’s characterizations are wrong. They’re completely unproductive. What, do you want a gold star for being victimized in that way? Ah, you got the mayor! You got him good on a piece of throwaway rhetoric!
Let’s be clear about something. This is the comments section of a blog. It’s a place where people can choose to have a ton of bravado and bluster. It’s rarely a place for real discourse. It’s not Socrates’ agora. Not even close.
What’s frightening is ganging up on Dirk Lorenz. Now, he sort of asked for it by showing up in the first place, but the litany of attacks was nearly relentless. It shows a lack of civility that I doubt many of you would use in public for fear of embarrassment. If you want to shout him down, fine. If you want to take him up on his offer to talk, there’s your chance. Because this here, this comments thread, is a vacuum. Outside of it, you might actually be able to effect change.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:08 am
Marine Layer, I would agree. This blog could be considered conjuring up a mob mentality, Noun, No. 7 seems to fit nicely.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:20 am
Green Room states: “Dirk, You are incredibly arrogant, stupid or both.” Response: Grow up GR. Name calling? I know Dirk better than anyone and testify to his integrity, his intelligence, and his commitment to this community over the past 20 years. If you feel compelled to spew your venom, direct it elsewhere. Dirk is way out of your league.
PB states: “…Commissioner Dirk Lorez is hosting a Pro-A’s Rally at the Saddlerack”. And: “Look at the time Dirk sent his email 2:12PM. He did this on taxpayer City Time.” Response: Read today’s Argus. Dirk isn’t hosting this. Get your facts straight. Also, Dirk is a small business owner. That’s his job. He dedicates upwards of 30 hours a month as a Planning Commissioner for which he gets next to nothing in terms of compensation. Go ahead and contact Matier and Ross. They’ll see you for what you are and have you for lunch. Get a clue.
Irvington says: “Congratulations, Dirkie boy. You’ve just become the second most hated official in this town.” Response: I’m certainly glad you’ve done the research to determine he’s the 2nd most hated official. This is your opinion which you are entitled to. Don’t go so far as speaking for the masses in general. You don’t have a clue.
Irvington also states: “We let you all go on your merry way for years, doing pretty much whatever you wanted.” Response: So tell me, how much have you contributed to this community over the years? Have you built a business that has contributed significantly to the community and to the schools and that has created jobs and generated tax revenues for the COF?
Irvington again: “..he immediately chose to Ignore the giant steamer that just landed in the room:. Response: I can only imagine your point of reference on this comment. Up until this point in the blog your comments suggested that you lack the tools to address issues at a mature and adult level. If you choose to use expressions like ” the giant steamer”, then do so at I_Am_A_LowLife.com or an equivalent site.
Lastly Irvington says: “you have no respect for anyone on this site who does not use their actual, real, Christian name?” Response: Again, you put words into other’s mouths. I’ve read his comments (and re-read them) and his tone has been nothing short of respectful even to those (mostly you) who’ve spewed venom his way. Everyone on this blog knows who Dirk is, where he works, and how to contact him. You, on the otherhand, remain anonymous by convenience. I respect those who want to remain anonymous, but your character is exposed when you fault others for putting themselves out there.
Just one more from Irvington: ” I think we’re getting a pretty clear picture of Dirk’s character, thank you.”
Response: Any mature and rational person reading this blog will form these opinions on Dirk’s character: Civic minded, hard worker, committed to the betterment of the COF, willing to make the sacrifices to benefit the residents of this town, level-headed, well-spoken. And those same mature and rational readers of this blog will have formed these opinions on your character: angry, close-minded, quick to jump the gun, opinionated, unwilling to fairly weigh both sides of an argument, someone who attacks when not provoked…an indication of insecurity and immaturity.
For those who take issue with Dirk or have a difference of opinion, meet with him. He states he’s willing to sit down and listen to all comments and opinions, good, bad, or indifferent. More often than not, those who make unfounded accusations and refuse to sit face to face and discuss other points of view while hiding behind anonymity lack character and certainly lack courage.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Matt, I am confused. The Chronicle says the A’s ballpark project in Fremont is over.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/21/MNAK161PL7.DTL
(02-20) 11:50 PST Fremont — It’s strike three for the Oakland Athletics in Fremont.
The team has bowed out of plans to build a new stadium and relocate 25 miles south on the Nimitz Freeway, A’s officials said Friday.
Whats up?
February 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
ML; I have to say, you should probably stick to baseball when it comes to Dirk. He’s a PLANNING COMMISSIONER who is not acting like one. I would say in that regard, this post has been – for the most part – right on!
February 21st, 2009 at 11:32 am
Having taken the evening to think about it, a few things became clearer to me.
Mr. Lorenz clearly has no idea of what his responsibilities are as a Planning Commissioner, particularly in the area of ethics.
Mr. Lorenz does not understand, in a comprehensive way, what he has done. He just doesn’t get it. There’s a good chance that he’s not trying to cover up for getting caught doing something that he knew he shouldn’t be involved in – he never knew what he was doing was wrong in the first place. But ignorance is no excuse.
Mr. Lorenz cites the posts from Vinnie Bacon and Gus Morrison as examples for other posters to follow, and they are admirable. However, one of the things that Mr. Lorenz doesn’t get is that Vinnie and Gus do not currently hold elected or appointed office in this town. Unlike Mr. Lorenz, they are under no obligation to maintain any level or appearance of impartiality concerning the issues upon which they will eventually be called upon to decide.
It is becoming increasing clear to more and more people that participatory government is on life-support in this town.
People, it’s time to drain the swamp.
Marine – you need to get right with today. Blogs are now the electronic public square. It is no longer necessary to seek out people IRL to make your feelings and ideas known. The community’s comments here are as valid as anything that is offered in person, and attempts to “put a lid on” this new form of community are a day late and a dollar short.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Actually, ML, I’d say this and your BLOG have shown just how effective of a public forum they are! Particularly when the rest of the media has been gobbled up.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Marine Layer,
Your blog (http://newballpark.blogspot.com) says you are from San Jose (I am assuming that is where you live). It is great to see a guy from San Jose being so passionate about Fremont. But I am curious why you are defending Dirk Lorenz and others who are plainly wrong on principle of position and conflict of interest.
BTW, do you also blog about City affairs in San Jose?
February 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Mr. Lorenz,
Still waiting for your response to my facts above. If you choose not to respond, please say so. That way I and others (comment #36 by Annie) can set our expectations.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Dirk,
I’m very bothered by what you wrote. First, you imply that WE, the ‘mob’, somehow stopped the process. Lew Wolff backed out!!
Lew Wolff obviously proposed something that many people in Fremont are strongly opposed to. It’s HIS decision whether he still wants to go through the process or not. Not surprisingly, HE decided against it.
This is not a ‘mob’ as you and the Mayor choose to label us. We’re simply concerned citizens; parents, homeowners, professionals, who have decided to exercise our constitutional rights and speak our peace. Everything FCN has done has been peaceful. To imply that we are associated with violent, belligerent people is very insulting to the decent people of FCN!
I guess you don’t understand “The Process” very well. “The Process” includes the participation of any resident who wants to have their voice heard.
You said “What frustrated me is the city review process is not being allowed to be followed.” What specifically have we done that has prevented the process from proceeding? I’ll give you a hint – NOTHING!!
February 21st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
CaliforniaGuy,
The best I understand is that the NOP for the Warm Springs project has been stopped. If they want to pick that up again, the 30 day comment period will have to start over.
The NOP for the Pac Commons site is ‘on hold’, i.e. they are not proceeding with the EIR at this time. My understanding is that they could ask the City to restart this project at any time. There would be no need for another NOP.
Call me paranoid, but the pro-A’s people are planing a rally themselves. THEY must think this project could still happen.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Irvington, I’m a very active blogger. I know what it means to work with an active group of commenters who represent different viewpoints. I foster vigorous debate when I can. But seriously, if you think anonymous commenters are the electronic equivalent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” then you are sadly, and perhaps gravely, mistaken.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
ML: with all respect, didn’t anonymous commenters/bloggers just send “Mr. Smith” (aka; Obama) to Washington?
February 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I guess judging by certain folk’s opinion here, Wasserman’s choice to not interview Vinnie for PC was a great move given his public stance against A’s. Objectivity goes both ways eh?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Team -
As noted before, Mr. Bacon is still, currently a private citizen and fully entitled to express his opinion here or anywhere else.
What your guy has chosen to do is violate the public trust by serving as a Planning Commissioner while actively supporting the interests of a developer who has an application pending before the Commission.
See the difference?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Team Dirk, Wasserman never made a “great move” in his career with Fremont.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
There’s a major difference between many bloggers, who often do a lot of background work, and many commenters, who tend to toss off short quips as gut reaction.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Marine -
Surprise, we agree!
However, being succinct is not a bar to being insightful. As our pal Polonius said:
“Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief”
February 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
ML -
I absolutely agree with you and what I find fascinating is that the Pro A’s blogs score so high on the anecdote/emotion (read “LACK OF BACKGROUND WORK”) scale whereas the No on A’s blogs routinely site specific facts (read “SOME AMOUNT OF BACKGROUND WORK”)
The pro-A’s position is by-in-large full of “short quips” and “gut reaction” . . . the “beautiful” ballpark with the setting sun . . .. the “jobs” (with no succinct examination of the kinds of jobs or the relative income they produce) . .. . the “economic benefits” that are generalized (but which fly in the face of independant research) . . . . just to site a few “S P E C I F I C S”
Anyone following these BLOGS for any period of time (read doing their “background work”) gets these point pretty quickly.
Glad you could drop by for a moment, though.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
What was that? I got lost in the douche-y use of “quotes.”
February 21st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Marine Layer,
You made a good point on #48,last paragraph. I believe if certain people like Doug sat face to face with Mr.Lorenz and discussed their views and mine he would have a hard time arguing his points. Maybe this is the reason why he hasn’t responded yet to him or me about #10. But, I also believe it wouldn’t make a difference since he, Wasserman, council have their minds made up. So I guess you can say, why bother?
BTW: I got your humor especially when you said, “bring your dancing shoes.”
February 21st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
You stay classy, ML . . .
February 21st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Ditto, Mr. “they can burn that dear old place down for all I care” Irvington.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Mr. Lorenz burned that bridge when he chose to abrogate his civic responsibilities. As I told him, I will support renovation of the theater, unless he is involved in the project. He has proven that he can’t be trusted, and may turn it into the “Fremont A’s Center Theater brought to you by Cisco”. In such a circumstance, it would better off existing only in our memories.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I understand the need by FCN and others to keep applying pressure to the administration. It’s clearly working, and it has shown a remarkable ability for quick organization and fast response. When I spoke to WS/Weibel residents during the open house in December I took note of this and said to myself, “The A’s have no idea what they’re in for – but they have prepared themselves.”
However, what’s going to happen when the A’s officially turn their attentions elsewhere? It’s going to happen within weeks. I see that there are some from outside FCN who want to galvanize support for generally greater transparency and other open gov’t initiatives. I’m very curious to see how much of FCN stays active for these admirable but admittedly less directly affecting issues, as opposed to the likely sloughing off of supporters as the crisis is averted. You have an opportunity to establish a new platform for addressing gov’t issues. Without “constant vigilance,” as Thomas Jefferson said, this situation is likely to repeat itself.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
ML; The last paragraph in your 4:55 pm post – to me – is prophetic! Great prose!!
February 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I have been wondering the same thing about the future of FCN. Certainly there are other issues here in town that could benefit from the same level of scrutiny that has been given (and rightly so) to the stadium proposal.
Right now there are elderly residents at the Besaro Mobile Home Park who are facing excessive rent increases or eviction.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11555715
This property is owned by Jack Rogers, the City’s former Parks and Maintenance Director. Last year, Rogers served as campaign chairman for Councilwoman Suzanne Chan.
I know it is difficult to fight a war on two fronts, but where is the Mission resident’s concern, the City’s concern for the folks at Besaro? Do the Mission residents feel an obligation to “pay back” the support that they have received from FCN members and others who live in all parts of town? Would they come out with the same enthusiasm to protest this injustice at Besaro as others have shown to support them?
In addition to working on specific issues, I hope there will be a future for FCN in educating voters about the positions of candidates for local office and in some way developing the new candidates that we desperately need.
I guess it will be partly up to the FCN Steering Committee and the balance of it up to the natural inertia of suburban life.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
After reading Mr. Lorenz’s email. it made me remember when i attended a Chamber of Commerce luncheon a couple of years ago when Mr. Lorenz donned an A’s hat at the poduim along with the rest of the Fremont Chamber after the A’s announced their intentions to work with Fremont for a new stadium.
If this A’s project ever did get to the Planning Commission (which looks like it never will), I would join many others in question his open-mindness about the project. He has clearly shown his preference over an extended period of time.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
reply to post 74–Irvingtion I am in.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:26 pm
My goodness, Mark, I nearly missed your monograph on Dirk’s character. He certainly has a mighty defender.
You see Mark, in politics, years of good works can be lost in a moment of stupidity. Ask Elliot Spitzer. Ask Marion Barry.
Sooner or later, Dirk will have to decide if he wants to run to remain on the Planning Commission. What do you think will be the first thing that comes to people’s minds when they see his name on the ballot? In all likelihood, it won’t be the good works you mention. It will be this blunder. Right or wrong, it’s the way the world works. “Dirk Lorenz? Oh, yeah, that’s the guy who had that party for the A’s.” Yes, I know it’s not his party, but by election time that detail will be too remote to register.
Of course, this assumes that the Council doesn’t remove him from the Commission before an election rolls around. I’ll have to refresh my memory on the Muni Code, but if memory serves, this can be done with or without cause.
I can’t recall ever seeing so many posts to any article on this site. It certainly has captured people’s attention. Like that old shampoo ad, “she tells two friends, and they tell two friends”.
I’m not going to bother to address you’re clucking about screen names. They are allowed on the site, most people use them, it’s a non-issue. I don’t know if Mark is really your name, and I don’t care.
I will give you one thing, however; my apologies if the use of the term “steamer” offended your delicate sensibilities. Given the alternatives, I thought I was taking the high road. I was going by the strictest definition, of course:
steam⋅er [stee-mer] – noun
1.something propelled or operated by steam, as a steamship.
2.a person or thing that steams.
3.a device, pot, or container in which something is steamed.
4.soft-shell clam.
–verb (used without object)
5.to travel by steamship.
I didn’t know people were so sensitive about clams.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Irvington,
I enjoyed your comments in posting #77. You refrained from name calling and making any unfounded accusations. That’s the basis of my critical remarks in prior postings. I encourage healthy debates. I’m comfortable enough to back up my opinions and welcome opposing views.
However, regarding your comment: “…the giant steamer that just landed in the room”. Are you saying that your comment was to be interpreted as “the giant clam that just landed in the room”? If you ask 100 people for their interpretation of this, my guess is that a very small percentage (<10%) would believe that you meant clam.
You also refer to my delicate sensitivities…get real. I can be as hard core as the next guy. No sensitivities here. I believe, however, that there’s a time and place for everything and my interpretation of your “steamer”comment is not appropriate for a public forum.
My apologies to you, though, if your intended use of “steamer” is as you suggest… a clam.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Mr. Lorenz,
Third and final call for you to respond to the FACTS I posted. You are silent seems to me that you really don’t have any facts behind the “this will be good for the City” feeling put out by Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, you and Chamber of Commerce.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 am
For two years, the stadium proponents fail to provide concrete facts and evidences to show the benefit of a baseball stadium. They just use the A’s rosy projection and tell people “it’s good for Fremont and we want it.” They purposely ignore all the risk and negative impacts, thinking they already have the council’s vote in their pocket.
There are so many flaws in the proposal. Why are the council members and commissioners fail to see them? With more and more residents knowing the truth now, everyone will ask the question: “should Fremont take the risk?”
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Irvington; for the record I think you are right-on with your posts!
Marc; what’s with this meet Dirk thing again? Any force of personality that he may have will not make up for the lack of reasoning he displays (nor yours).
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 am
# Team Dirk! Says:
“I guess judging by certain folk’s opinion here, Wasserman’s choice to not interview Vinnie for PC was a great move given his public stance against A’s. Objectivity goes both ways eh?”
If the mayor wanted to push this project through without looking at the arguments against it, then yes, it was a good move to reject me immediately.
On the other hand, if the mayor wanted to make sure that this was in the best interest of Fremont, he would have made sure that both sides of the argument were represented on the Planning Commission.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Marine Layer says – “..if you think anonymous commenters are the electronic equivalent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” then you are sadly, and perhaps gravely, mistaken.”
This very assertive statement ( “..sadly…gravely..” ???) from the same person (or maybe not) that so actively maintains a pro-A’s blog site at – http://newballpark.blogspot.com/2008/02/wolff-on-ron-owens-show-tomorrow-bart.html
The contradiction could certainly be characterized as a double-standard.
Unfortunately, such conflict of thinking only serves to call into question their other assertions, accompanying sentiment and resulting position.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
So, Team, what was Vinnie supposed to do in this situation? Sit on the sidelines and not say anything to anybody about what he thinks because there might be a chance that there might be a vacancy on the Planning Commission and then he might be appointed?
By that standard, any person who ever entertained even the most remote idea of ever serving on a local board or commission would be stripped of their freedom of speech.
One of the functions of the interview/appointment process for local boards and commissions should be (it obviously isn’t when it comes to our Current Mayor) to assess the degree to which an an applicant, who has up until that time been free to express their opinions, can be depended upon to set those opinions aside and render fair and impartial opinions on the issues that come before that commission.
It is my belief that Ms. Quan cannot be relied upon to set her relationships with developers aside in her position as Commissioner. If she could be depended upon to do so, she would not currently be establishing her own firm, independent of Gonsalves and Kolachenko, which will represent developers.
I believe that Mr. Bacon could have been depended upon to act as a responsible Planning Commissioner. Like many of us in the movement, he has consistently asked for information which is needed to make a rational decision about the project. In so doing, he has behaved more responsibly than most of the current members of the Commission.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Go NPR, do you understand the distinction between a blogger and a commenter? And the actual contributions the two might make?
Here’s a polite way of putting it: Bloggers good, Commenters – poor signal/noise ratio.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Marine Layer, post #85:
I used to think you had something good to say. Now, you’ve lost credibility. There is little difference between a blogger and a commenter – the comments presented so far have had a high signal to noise ratio, and there are lots of bloggers who have a low signal to noise ratio.
The commenters have generally said things that have been backed up by fact. As such, they are truthful. That has a high signal to noise ratio.
And, isn’t the one of the purposes of blogging is to create dialog? Blogging in an of itself is useless.
As such, the commenters should be taken as seriously as the blogger.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Marine Layer -
It seems like the distinction you are struggling to make is one of personal choice. ML feels that those who host a BLOG are generally good, but those who “comment” on the BLOG are “poor”. (?!!)
Perhaps ML would be more satisfied in a world wherein the “good” BLOGgers were posting and there were no commenters since theirs represents poor signal/noise.
(Why is this is beginning to sound like Fremont City Hall ?)
We disagree on the distinction you are attempting to make.
There is an arrogance in both your characterization of “good” and “poor” as well as the original double-standard you are struggling to defend.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I’m not debating the substance of this particular comments thread. It’s comments threads in general. Dude, are you honestly going to tell me that the majority of comments threads following stories at say, SFGate, are worthwhile? Maybe you’ll be able to pick out one or two new nuggets of worthwhile information out of the mess. Most often, it’s people who have itchy trigger fingers and are falling over themselves to repeat the same arguments over and over. Mark Morford wrote about the problem last weekend!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/02/13/notes021309.DTL
Now there are plenty of useless, pointless, insipid blogs and bloggers out there. They make us look bad. Those who take the time to research, report, and plan their sites accordingly deserve to be elevated just a tad over a commenter, especially an anonymous one. If you want to lump us all together, fine, it just shows that you don’t appreciate all of the work required.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
La Boca,
Regarding your comment #81. You simply don’t get it. Anyone can hide behind anonymity and words. Dirk has offered to sit down with anyone to discuss his views on the stadium project as well as other city initiatives. And to listen to others’ views. If you’d take him up on this, you’d find him to be quite intelligent and resonable. And dare I say, you’d likely walk away respecting him and possibly liking him.
The fact is that you don’t know him. You choose to attack because his opinion differs from yours and bvecause it’s convenient for you. It’s certainly your right to disagree with Dirk, me, or anyone else. However regarding this matter, you should save face by simply thanking Dirk for all he’s done for this community.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I stand by my thoughts, ML – I appreciate that you feel that you work hard to maintain your BLOG and that the hard work you put in should count for something. I am guessing that in time, it does – provided you dont erode your credibility with emotional banter.
Here are two important conclusions I’ve drawn from many years of work in the cyber-realm -
1. Identity is a facade.
2. The best thinking will reveal itself if the venue (whatever it is) focusses on exchange of ideas and not on form or personality.
This second point is why I and others will so aggressively argue that the anonymous blogger (or commentor) concept is a distraction from the free and open exchange of ideas. In almost all cases where identity is argued as important it reveals a motive that has nothing to do with seeking the best ideas. Why DO YOU care about the identity of someone sharing a thought ?
Having made these points I am still wondering if you would truly subordinate great ideas and thinking because the role or identity of the person putting those ideas forward was lower on some mystical pecking order ? I doubt that this is the case – I think you are smarter than that. I am guessing that perhaps your original post was, as you say, just a matter of “itchy trigger fingers” and you mis-spoke.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
You know, I’m not concerned with who’s fish and who’s fowl. If you have something that you really feel moved to say, say it.
I’ve been reading these posts for a while now, and I must say that I’ve seen a lot of posters develop over time. Some people have started with the most non-sensical, radical, mis-spelled, un-punctuated, pointless ramblings (and I do support their right to post those), and they have gradually matured into logical, informed writers. I don’t always agree with what they say, but they start to say it better.
I hope we’re all evolving. Like sharks, if we don’t move forward, we die.
I just think it’s not productive to be too judgmental about how others present their ideas. I believe that it has the potential to dissuade people from contributing to the site, which is detrimental to all readers.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Marc,
Again, I think La Boca and the rest of us get it better than you realize.
I understand how difficult it must be for Dirk and those who care for him to deal with a situation like this. Like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he’s been caught. Flat busted. Red handed. Dead bang.
I can understand how tempting it is for y’all, in a situation like this, to try to justify what he has done. Unfortunately, the facts of the e-mail that was posted leave very little room for rational justification.
You see, Dirk is a sitting Planning Commissioner. The citizens of this town still want to believe that we can trust certain people with impartially evaluating issues and making judgments on those issues based on the facts that have been presented to them by all sides. To date, no facts showing that the stadium will benefit this city have been shared with the residents.
Even though Dirk did not specifically use his title in his e-mail regarding the Saddleback gathering, he does not need to. People know that he currently sits on the Planning Commission and that he will be responsible to cast a vote on whether or not to approve the A’s proposal.
Therefore, he was caught using his office, the power that he has been entrusted with by the citizens of this town, to benefit a developer who is proposing to build a stadium in this town.
It’s totally res ipsa loquitur, dude – the facts speak for themselves.
As I told him originally, damage control would indicate that y’all resist temptation and stop trying to tell us what a great guy he is. Even if he was Mother Teresa, he still did what he did. Some of the greats have eventually had to apologize (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart, Don Imus). It might be a good start. The people of this town can be pretty forgiving, and a well-crafted apology would do less damage than trying to justify the unjustifiable.
About the last thing anybody wants to do is sit down and chat with somebody who has just violated their trust in such a public way. And I wouldn’t spend too much time waiting around for that “thank you” from the residents.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
To all the negative blogs……..
Reading these blobs I know that Lorenz is getting a bad rap just because he wanted to reasearch facts before jumping to a negative conclussion.
He is not the only one in the city that believes all the facts need to be looked at before making a final decision about the A’s. The discovery process was not completed because of a vocal minority. We most likely will never know whether the project would have been good or bad for the community because the discovery process was not completed.
This type of intolerant thinking from some citizens is appalling and I believe these people will appose any change presented to Fremont. Look folks, Fremont is not what it was 20 years ago. Change will happen and with close minded people, I fear it will not be in a positive direction. I want Fremont to be more than used car lots, high density houses and churches.
I attended SJ state over 30 years ago. The down town was a ghetto. The Shark Tank changed that. I can not believe how that city transformed to a really nice place to visit.
Rumor has it the A’s are looking for another city. What a shame or should I say shame on you for not being tolerant enough to give it a chance.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Silent Majority @ 3:41 pm: YOU ARE ANYTHING BUT A SILENT MAJORITY!
You say WHAT?: “Lorenz is getting a bad rap just because he wanted to research facts before jumping to a negative conclusion”?
What a transparent attempt to completely distort that in fact THE EXACT OPPOSITE HAS OCCURRED! Nice try!
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Dear Silent -
All the people who eventually became stadium opponents ever asked for was information on the project and inclusion in the process.
That was not forthcoming from City Hall; however, a lot of cheerleading about how the project was a “done deal” did.
People who were concerned about the project were forced to do their own research, which is available on the Fremont Citizen’s Network website.
It sounds like we’re in the same age group. I know change will happen to Fremont. The members of FCN just want to ensure that the change will include a large number of full-time, skilled, well-paid, benefitted jobs, rather than the few, temporary, part-time, non-benefitted, low-skill, low-wage jobs that the stadium project would offer.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
silent majority Says:
“I attended SJ state over 30 years ago. The down town was a ghetto. The Shark Tank changed that. I can not believe how that city transformed to a really nice place to visit.”
Yeah, I’m sure that whole “Silicon Valley” thing didn’t have any thing to do with the economic development of San Jose.
I have talked with many of people of Fremont about this issue. I’m convinced that if this were put on the ballot it would fail.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I have to say that the tone of the above postings have changed. No more name calling, no more characteriztions…nicely done. It’s good to debate issues, it’s good to point out where someone may have acted inappropriately, and it’s good to form an opinion…good, bad or indifferent. All the good that can be accomplished with open communication is eroded when name calling and characterizations come into play.
Again, nicely done.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Silent Maj: If you read this entire blog Mr.Lorenz has been asked more than once to respond to some facts posted by D Alur #10. So far he has chosen not to. Therefore, I conclude he has nothing to say. Maybe he has read the entire FCN website regarding facts about the stadium costs, etc… and has since changed his mind. There is also a strongly written letter from NUMMI to the city manager opposing the stadium full of more negative factors. I hope you will take the time to read about it. Sorry you think you are the majority, I have to inform you are the minority as more and more people educate themselves. Personally, I think the whole stadium deal is going to get shut down due to economics. Look at the stock market, housing and jobs. Just heard today Westfield Shopping Center (Valley Fair)is scaling back their operational hours. All I can say is read, read, read. You’re right about Fremont not being like it was 20 years ago. We had 3 home burglaries during the day. This is in Wasserman’s neck of the woods. Are you aware of this Bob?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Silent M: I would like to add something else. I do understand how you feel, you want change, positive change. I do too, but a stadium is not going to accomplish this. Originally,I thought a ball park would be a great idea until I started reading the stats about them. After researching I realized a stadium is not a good, sound project. Of course then the council swiftly changed sites due to opposition from PC. That was a BIG mistake, but they were desperate. I don’t care if I am called a “NIMBY” because I am honest enough to say, “I don’t want a ballpark so close to my home.” Why should I? I’ve lived here for a long time and I like it just the way it is. Right now, I think we should sit tight and see what happens with the economy. These are all my opinions.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The thing that most appalls me about Dirk Lorenz and the rest of the Planning Commission (and the City Council) is that they haven’t done their homework. There is a large volume of research on how sports stadiums effect a city’s finances. With the exception of the old Wrigley Stadium in Chicago, every sports stadium has been a net money loser for its city.
I didn’t come to that conclusion without reading numerous studies, including an intensively researched and documented 12-page report by the well-known Cato Institute (a conservative think tank). If I can so easily find so much research about this subject, why are our Planning Commissioners acting as if they’re completely uninformed about this issue?
Since the research is out there and so easily available (on the internet and in books), there are only two possible conclusions as to why our Planning Commission members are still pushing for this stadium:
1. They haven’t bothered to become informed (which leads to the conclusion that they’re incompetent to hold a position as Planning Commissioner) – or
2. They see a way to benefit personally from a stadium and that’s more important to them than the real and lasting harm it will do to Fremont and its residents.
The one truly beneficial thing that is resulting from the stadium issue is that many of the citizens of Fremont have been awakened to the perfidy of our city’s leaders. Now that we know they can’t be trusted, we’ll be watching their actions much more closely. It’s going to be much more difficult for Fremont’s “inside crowd” of small time politicians and petty bureaucrats to get away with their backroom deals.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Randy, you couldn’t have said it better.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Marine Layer, I have viewed and copied your website/blog for permenent reference because of the careful work and research you have invested in that format. I commend you for making the effort and thank you for compiling information to share.
As to your final opinions and conclusions regarding stadium or any other subject of choice, I willingly defend your right to an ideology wheather it is comensurate with mine or not. ((Granted you do get extra points if you agree with me). (You dont lose any if you dont).
However no one can deny that your postings and stimuli have created a plethora of ideas, information, opinions, and yes, entertainment.
Certainly there would be less to this site if not for those like you who will take the time and make the effort to foster full and frank discussion among peers.
So to you and to all others who contribute to this site and to Matt Artz who created the site, Thank you
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Randy; agree with Perry Mason – particularly “petty bureaucrates.” Thank you.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Silent Majority:
Maybe I live in a different universe. I spent 4 hours going door to door in warm springs and I met 1 person who was for this stadium and one person who was on the fence, the rest against. I imagine it might be a little different outside of Warm Springs, Weibel and MIssion, but that group reprents about half of Fremont so your majority must be not only silent but half-dead.
I find it very hard to beleive that our ‘vocal minority’ was able to push back Wolff et al with his BILLIONS in assets. This man did not become so sucessful by quitting when a few people yelled at him. There had to be something more than our small ‘mob’ to convince this huge force from moving in. I think, in fact it had to be that you are the minority and through PEACEFULL communication of the realities of stadium economics (still not refuted by the city) it woke the greater population, and the power of NUMMI (powerfull, quiet influence) the unstoppable force of money was replelled by the more powerful will of an informed-by-facts majority.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Incidentally, I should have mentioned in my message (#100) that I don’t live in Warm Springs or the Mission area, etc. I live in Glenmoor. I’ve been against the Stadium for more than a year now, since I first began reading about what our city’s so-called leaders were trying to do to Fremont.
This ridiculously bad idea would harm every resident of Fremont. It first caught my attention when I realized the traffic it would bring. My husband and I both commute on 680 and the traffic would be a nightmare. Then, after I did quite a bit of reading, it became obvious that our taxes would go up to support this supposedly privately funded (yeah, right) stadium. Throw in to the mix the fact that the quality of life in Fremont would suffer from the increased crime, air pollution, noise pollution, lack of/reduced police availability for the rest of the city before, during and after a game, drunken fans driving through our city after the game, etc., etc. I could go on and on. The real costs are incalculable.
I’m happy that so many of us have awakened! Fremont is no longer a city of suckers to be preyed on by the con artists of professional sports and their willing allies in our city government.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Ilive in Pleasanton and learned this weekend that Fremont was working to put the stadium off of 680- nearthe Sunol Grade. Two years ago I used to commute past the Oakland A’s stadium and can verify that traffic was Horendous after each game. Place a Stadium near 680 and you will create a Nightmare. Fremont you need a new Mayor,and City council
February 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Kyle Says; “Fremont you need a new Mayor, and City council” AMEN!
February 24th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Yup, you’re right.
That’s why we need to be all over these Council and Commission guys like white on rice, at least until we can get some people in office who realize that they represent us, they don’t rule us.
The price of democracy is eternal vigilance, even when you’d really rather stay home with the remote.
If the Council had any sense, they would see this as a real opportunity for them to clean house (which to me means start by getting rid of The Mayor) and change up their attitude to be more open to input and transparent in their processes.
They can start by reading the Brown Act.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Earth to Council; FIRE DIAZ!
July 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Traffic exchange is an example of a way to get noticed also. Not sure how many people use them but they still work.