109

Interesting Email #2

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.

Matt Artz

  • Anon

    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!

  • Irvington

    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.

  • Vacuum

    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.

  • Sid R

    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?

  • http://www.fremontcitizensnetwork.org D Alur

    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.

  • http://www.bacon2008.com Vinnie Bacon

    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!!

  • http://www.bacon2008.com Vinnie Bacon

    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.

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    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.

  • Anon

    ML: with all respect, didn’t anonymous commenters/bloggers just send “Mr. Smith” (aka; Obama) to Washington?

  • Team Dirk!

    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?

  • irvington

    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?

  • Walter

    Team Dirk, Wasserman never made a “great move” in his career with Fremont.

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    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.

  • irvington

    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”

  • http://www.talkfremont.com anonymous

    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.

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    What was that? I got lost in the douche-y use of “quotes.”

  • Annie

    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.”

  • irvington

    You stay classy, ML . . .

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    Ditto, Mr. “they can burn that dear old place down for all I care” Irvington.

  • irvington

    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.

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    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.

  • Anon

    ML; The last paragraph in your 4:55 pm post – to me – is prophetic! Great prose!!

  • irvington

    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.

  • Relatively new to Fremont

    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.

  • tbone

    reply to post 74–Irvingtion I am in.

  • irvington

    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.

  • Marc

    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.

  • http://www.fremontcitizensnetwork.org D Alur

    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.

  • http://noasws.blogspot.com NoAsWS

    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?”

  • La Boca

    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).

  • http://www.bacon2008.com Vinnie Bacon

    # 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.

  • Go NPR

    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.

  • Irvington

    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.

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    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.

  • Dude

    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.

  • http://www.kqed.org Go NPR

    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.

  • http://newballpark.blogspot.com Marine Layer

    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.

  • Marc

    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.

  • http://www.kqed.org Go NPR

    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.

  • irvington

    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.

  • irvington

    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.

  • silent majority

    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.

  • La Boca

    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!

  • Fremont Lifer

    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.

  • http://www.bacon2008.com Vinnie Bacon

    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.

  • Marc

    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.

  • Annie

    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?

  • Annie

    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.

  • Randy

    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.

  • Perry Masonary

    Randy, you couldn’t have said it better.