Polling on the A’s in Fremont
By Matt Artz
Friday, December 18th, 2009 at 5:09 pm in Uncategorized.
I have no answers for who’s polling people in Fremont about the A’s. I just called Lew Wolff, and he said it’s not the team, and he doesn’t know who it would be.
Bob Wasserman said he knows someone who got called by a pollster, but he doesn’t know who’s sponsoring the poll.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
December 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
The guy who called me said he was from a firm called “Central Research”. There was “unknown number” on the caller ID. I Googled and found there is such a firm that does polling but not much else.
The poll asked about how I like the A’s and the Giants, how many games I go to a year for each team, etc. They definitely honed in on how I would feel about a ‘state of the art’ stadium being built in Fremont. While San Jose was mentioned briefly, the focus was clearly on Fremont.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
So Matt, did you ask Bob Wasserman why the topic of the A’s is coming up in the interviews for a new Redevelopment Project Manager for master planning NUMMI site? Being Mayor, he should at least be able to get the answer!
December 18th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
There are many news in the past week: (1) Several meetings about A’s moving to downtown San Jose; (2) Oakland’s final push to keep the A’s; and (3) Giants sponsored activities to block A’s out of south bay. It won’t be surprised to see some “special interest groups” trying to use this opportunity to put Fremont back into ballpark consideration. It’s a big business opportunity for them, and the once big opponent NUMMI is now out of the picture this time.
The key issues is: which location is best for a ballpark? If you put in Lew Wolff’s shoes, which site would have best return of investment? Also, which community will have best support for the A’s? I think the answers are very obvious.
December 19th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Drove by Nummi the other day a chill went down my spine. We blew it by running the A’s out on a rail! Don’t tell me the Cool Aid Drinkers who killed major league baseball coming to are fair city are coming around? Pass the salt.
December 20th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Does anyone else find it a little odd that neither an owner of A’s nor the Mayor of Fremont don’t know who’s “sponsoring” a poll about building a ballpark in Fremont?
So, that means that either the City Manager (aka Executive Director of Redevelopment who is about to be handed 1.1 billion in CAP increase) doesn’t know what’s going on – or maybe he does?
Both ways it appears that nobody knows “who’s on first base” in Fremont. Sound familiar?
December 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Regarding the 1.1 billion CAP increase in Redevelopment funds I highly recommend William Marshak’s December 16th Opinion piece at:
http://www.tricityvoice.com/displayPages.php?issue=2009-12-16&page=25
December 21st, 2009 at 12:38 am
It’s time to rethink the A’s in Fremont, if a stadium was considered on the NUMMI site and traffic is planned properly, IT WILL WORK! Bring them to Fremont, it’s time for change, it’s time to get the City we deserve, it’s time for BASEBALL in Fremont!
December 21st, 2009 at 7:58 am
Fremontguy: If you want the team, fine. But for the rest of Fremont, they should have a VOTE on the idea if it’s going to go anywhere – or ANY more staff time is spent on it (including the City Manager / Executive Director of Redevelopment (who is the same person).
The real questions right now are: (1) who sponsored the phone survey?, (2) why are they asking about the A’s in the Redevelopment Project Manager interviews?, and (3) what did Fred Diaz mean by in September when he said the A’s may be still around?
December 21st, 2009 at 8:01 am
Anon101 Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 8:00 am
See Fred Diaz’s statement in September here:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/09/18/fremont-still-wants-to-play-ball/#comment-8938
December 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am
I agree Anon101 that Fremont should have a referendum on the stadium. And I can only hope it coincides with the city council election.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:58 am
Exactly; and this time the discussion about if and/or where the A’s should or should go – should not be muted!
December 21st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Correction; should or should not (Freudian slip!)
December 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Nor surprisingly, some of us see this a bit differently, NoAsWS. The key issue is not which location is best for a ballpark but is a ballpark what is best for Fremont?
Not much has changed since the original go-round on this; even if NUMMI is closed, Costco, Lowes and Kohls have no reason to change their position against the proposal, particularly with their sales continuing to slump in this economy.
The budget situation of the school district, which would have to educate the children who would live in the residential component of the proposed development, has not improved.
The City’s budget for street maintenance and public safety services has not improved.
The wealthy residents in the hills near Weibel have no less reason to get their attorneys ready to challenge any and all impacts from the stadium, dragging out the EIR process as long as possible. As we’ve seen in the health care fight, delay can be just as destructive as outright opposition.
And if that isn’t enough, we have elections for City Council coming up. Given the caliber of Councilmembers we’ve been blessed with in recent years, and that the incumbents are still nursing their wounds from the last time they played with the live wire of a stadium proposal, how many candidates do you think will be ready, willing and able to finesse a position on the stadium sufficiently to win an election? Would our City Manager, who apparently still has his pom-poms ready to cheer for another stadium proposal, relish the idea of dealing with Councilmember(s) who were not equally enthusiastic about a local stadium? The upcoming Council elections could be as close to a stadium referendum as you’ll get. Ever wonder why the Council didn’t want the populace to vote on the stadium proposal last time?
So, you see NoAs, it still comes down to the question of whether our community could afford to support for the A’s.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Fremont Lifer has found the light switch on stadium economics.
From a logistical standpoint
The major Pac Com revenue (and tax) producers still have no reason to support a stadium with the attendant parking problems that such a stadium would create for them.
Maybe there’s a way to convert the NUMMI property into a proper stadium development – time and open discussions can only tell.
That said – according to all the available data – there is little or no economic benefit for a community to add a stadium to their list of features. It’s a matter of political ego – some revenue gains for a few businesses – and concurrent revenue losses for others – - and myriad potential “gifts” to the developer and stadium owners in the form of land grants, re-zoning, RDA funds or a combination of all of the above.
I found it curious that the Argus editorial chooses to suggest – “One need only look across the Bay to see what impact a ballpark can have on a once-blighted area.” – And I was struck with the similarity between this statement and the scene in “The Wizard of Oz”. You know, the one where “The Wizard” tells Dorothy and her pals to ignore the guy behind the curtain – - – - – kinda like – dont pay any attention to that Coliseum in Oakland – let’s take a look across the Bay to see what is possible – - – never mind what we’ve done in our current home.
Cetainly there can be no argument that we should look across the Bay to see what is possible and at the same time look back here in Wolfe’s current backyard to see what is real.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I don’t think the future of Fremont should be determined by Kohl’s and Costco. If there comes a time to develop Fremont west, with or without a stadium, the commercial interests there should be one of the the LAST voices Fremont listens too. There are certain concessions retailers must make to have access to 200,000 consumers. This is one of them.
December 21st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Let’s end this once and for all – put the A’s on the ballot. Let the people of Fremont speak!
December 21st, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Which is it for the A’s: PC, WS/NUMMI, CP (Central Park), or nothing?
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 am
Marty, I concur.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Yes!! A’s to Fremont. We should have the ballot on this. Otherwise Pacific commons will go the Globe way. A theatre and a stadium would make a nice combo deal in that place. There is so much empty land getting wasted.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
If you were Lew Wolff, why do you want to build your new ballpark in Fremont when there are other better choices in downtown San Jose, or Jack London square in Oakland?
Form business perspective, which location will have the best return for your ballpark investment?
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Not so fast NoAsWS –
You are thinking like someone who is simply marketing a stadium and a ball club.
Remember that Mr Wolfe is – 1st – a developer.
So, very significant in his personal value proposition is the prospect of developing that “ballpark village”. . . .
So, in part the answer to your question is swayed by
how much RDA or rezoning or other subsidies the respective city is willing to throw at Wolfe for the privledge of having his stadium and all of its “amenities” in their midst. . . . .
These indirect subsidies are the point that pro-stadium folks conveniently overlook when they dribble random statements like “It wont be built with any taxpayer money.”
But – needn’t worry – - Wolfe & Co are not considering Fremont. Increasingly, the anecdotal evidence is that his team is merely fanning flames of potential competition to keep his preferred stalking horse piqued.
In the PIXAR movie “UP” is a little trick that is frequently used by one of the characters – when the dog he has befriended becomes a nuisance, he just hollers “SQUIRREL !” – - – and the dog redirects all attention in a predictable Pavlovian response – - – now think – “STADIUM !!”
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Addressing post 21:
A Fremont location would keep the team close enough to Oakland to preserve patronage from the large east bay fan base, as well as make it more accessible for South bay and lower peninsula fans.
Though SJ is the real population center of the Bay Area, I think it is too south to accommodate most current fans, especially with the dearth of public transit options into SJ.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
opps, my comment was to NoAsWs
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Well I can understand the opposition to A’s in fremont, if fremont was more like palo alto. But its fremont for christsakes! and the land near pacific commons is going waste. That area is kinda industrial anyway.
Personally, I wouldnt starting a business in fremont (hmm.. maybe asian milk tea shop), but if a sucker wants to start one then why discourage it.
There are so many vacant lots in the city and no one is ready to develop (centerville, downtown …)
The stadium per se may not benefit the city financially, but the restaurants, pubs that will spring up definitely will.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
San Jose is always Lew Wolff’s number one choice since day one. They picked Fremont simply because the Giants opposition, and Cisco’s large piece of undeveloped land. With the recession and housing bubble, there is no incentive for them to build the ballpark in Fremont anymore. Besides, there is no existing infrastructure in south Fremont to support a successful ballpark. And most importantly, the San Jose plan is getting closer and closer to reality.
Go San JosA’s!
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“The stadium per se may not benefit the city financially, but the restaurants, pubs that will spring up definitely will”-
Right you are Andy – and the restaraunts and pubs across town will lose out.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Let the people of Fremont speak! Good for you Anon101 I hope you weren’t one of fringe mob/NIMBYs that killed the A’s coming to Fremont the first time around…bad move! Let hold them yokels accountable for the lost tax revenue and lost jobs our community might be looking forward to! Put it on the ballot.. Holy Bacon! Pass the salt Gus! So what if Fremont wasn’t Lew (BIG BAD) Wolfs first choice the A’s wanted to come here and the FRINGE ran them out on a rail. This was and still could be the best thing that ever happened to Fremont. Just a reminder to all you nay sayers (Bbox231) this will stand little chance of getting a second chance, but if it does please no more angry mobs on Mission Blvd.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:40 am
nay sayer – stadium NIMBY – and PROUD OF IT !
Here’s a little holiday present for you that still think the stadium has ANY positive economic benefit. . . .
First, for those who dont have time or are unable to read the referenced document, a couple of notable quotes –
“Referring to these studies, Crompton (1995) says, “Too often, the motives of those commissioning an economic impact analysis appear to lead to adoption of procedures and underlying assumptions that bias the resultant analysis so the numbers support their advocacy position”.
But – here’s a really big point -
“No retrospective econometric study found any evidence of positive economic impact from professional sports facilities or franchises on urban economies.”
(Notice SS and Marty and folks at Argus – the author uses the word “No” – meaning, none, e.g., nada, a complete absence, zero . . . .)
“In fact, some research has found a negative economic impact of professional sports on urban economies.”
(What’s this ? A possible “negative” impact e.g., it COSTS money – the community LOSES ????? – Hmmm, I wonder if our city leaders are smart enough to negotiate us a deal that DOESN’T lose us money . . . . . QUICK – someone give me a reason to believe that idea)
Read for yourselves –
http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_103.pdf
One final thought – is it possible, is there ANY likelihood that just maybe ALL of this is just about the need for debate ??
Which by the way generates traffic “eyeballs” and “click thrus” for those GOOGLE ad’s you scattered around ?????. . . . . now, WHO could POSSIBLY want THAT ???
Happy holidays one and all !
December 24th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Well if stadiums are not profitable, then why do cities agree to have them? I have said this before and I say it again. The money city gets from the stadium iteself may not be profitable, but because of the stadium restaurants will get access to out-of-towners who would otherwise not stepped into fremont.
Bbox231, “Right you are Andy – and the restaraunts and pubs across town will lose out.”
Lose out? What are you talking about? By having the stadium you are bringing in out of town people to your city.
What is so hard to understand in this? If more restaurants/pubs do not bring revenue to the city, then why is the city trying to develop empty lots?
The studies you point out are generic ones and cannot applied here.
What about NUMMI. How much money did NUMMI bring to the city every year
?. I heard a ridiculously low number. I am sure the stadium by iteself will bring more money.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
You ask, Andy, why cities develop stadium complexes. The problem is that you can’t just drop any generic stadium down in any random city you pick off the map and expect it to work out for either the team or the residents. That’s why some stadia end up like Oakland and others like AT&T Park. Those of us who were against the stadium proposal found no evidence to suggest that the proposal would be a plus for Fremont – it could be a better fit for San Jose or another location in Oakland. San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland are large, established cities with far larger infrastructure, public safety, and other systems than are found in our fair city. It would not benefit us to have it here – it would cost us money, and lots of it.
You’re sure the stadium would bring in money. How do you know? BBox and others have cited several studies here and in other threads on this site that show this is not correct. Where are the studies that support your position? Is it based on your “gut” or is it what you hear from the A’s and MLB?
True, a stadium would bring a lot of people to Fremont, which is part of the problem. How do we handle crowd control, traffic issues and the costs of road repair due to increased traffic? Our City budget is already strained to cover the costs of public safety and road maintenance. I recall Gus posting on the miniscule percentage of sales tax that the City actually receives back after it filters through the State and County.
I believe that the cross-town business loss B is referring to may be analogous to the effect that putting a WalMart in a city has on existing mom-and-pop businesses – they wither and die. We already have two WalMarts, busily knocking off local businesses even before the economy went south.
Also, regarding the NUMMI site, are you aware of all of the environmental clean-up that would be necessary before anyone could develop that site for anything? Would Mr. Wolfe be willing to take on that additional cost?
You know, Squiddy, from what I’ve seen, anti-stadium folks do what we can to present fact-based arguments. Referring to us as “yokels” is just a cheap shot. We’re regular people who live here just like you.
Gotta run – time to open presents! Ho Ho Ho, y’all!
December 24th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Just the facts Eggman… yokel is defined as a naive or gullible inhabitant of a rural area or small town. Yes, you are regular people who live here just like just like I do but again you must admit that Lifer and his mob rule crowd are naive / gullible inhabitants of a cultureless and boring bedroom community that would benefit greatly from a major league baseball franchise coming to Fremont. We who support major league baseball coming to Fremont are not happy with the way your side behaved.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
ANOTHER Christmas present for Swamp Squid -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jJ49y6A4pA
December 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
. . . and ANOTHER Christmas present for Swamp Squid -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPW7Y4kshJA&feature=PlayList&p=D513EA7C00BCCB64&index=0
December 24th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
. . . and the hits just keep on comin’ ! ! ! ! !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hQL1IDOy68&feature=related
December 25th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” I have a vision of Bbox and his like minded yokel mob friends, in place of the Wizard of Oz., trying to convince the good people of Fremont to ignore the jobs, employment and forget about notoriety a Major Leagues Baseball franchise would bring to are boring little bedroom community. Bbox Your you tube gas is laughable. The dark side is no place for anyone…even you. Give up dude!
December 26th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Sorry you find Fremont boring . . . .
Which jobs were you referring to that this would bring to Fremont ? Was it those high-paying beer and conecssion sales ? Let’s see – how many days out of the year do these pay someone ? Yup – now THOSE are the kind of jobs that’ll turn this economy around ! These are jobs that are one step removed from being the Tilt-A-Whirl operator.
Glad you finally gave up on the economic benefits though.
Maybe some of that “gas” is finally sinking in.
(Why are stadium proponents so consistantly full of anecdotal emotion as the basis for their ballpark support; they feel a need to resort to personalized offensiveness when they encounter objections; and so so so so short on factual information ? WHy can’t stadium supporters muster data and infromation to support their cause ?)
December 26th, 2009 at 9:44 am
“Referring to us as “yokels” is just a cheap shot.”
As opposed to Fremont Lifer’s high value comments, like those in favor of a stadium are:
“…the local equivalent of the teabaggers, birthers, tenthers, and others who cannot deal with reality.”
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/09/29/tit-for-tat/#comment-8442
December 26th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Here are several books that spell out the entire sports stadium fiasco. If you don’t wish to delve that deeply I recommend the N.Y. Times article listed, which you can do online.
“Major League Losers – The real cost of sports and who’s paying for it “- Mark Rosentraub
“Sports, Jobs and Taxes – The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums” – Roger Noll
“Public Dollars, Private Stadiums – The battle over building sports stadiums” – Kevin Delaney
“Field of Schemes – How the great stadium swindle turns public money into private profit “- Neil deMause
“Stadium Boom Deepens Municipal Woes” – N.Y. Times, 12/24/09 – Ken Belson
With a twist on the old saying, you can lead a person to the facts, but you can’t make them think.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
A’s naysayers! I keep hearing this comment that sales $ from new restaurants/pubs would be a trickle to fremont and insignificant. So I am going to agree with you and take this one step further.
You see fremont hub and all the people that hang out there (think pollution!!!). How much money by your logic does fremont get out of it. I would think close to nothing. So how about closing that the whole thing down and make a free for public park.
And how much money do think Costco brings to fremont? And look at all the crowd it attracts. Lets move it like 3 miles s into milpitas. So fremont is saved the trouble and the thing is still within reach.
And that centerville site, lets keep it the way it is. If they build more homes, it means more people, more overcrowding in schools, extra cops money. Nah nah! If they build entertainment venues, again more crowding, more cops. And money fremont gets is nothing anyway. So why the trouble?
Bbox we are friends!!!
December 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Andy is confused -
I am unaware of any opponents to the stadium who have stated that the sales $ from new restaurants/pubs would be “..a trickle..” – - –
Quite the contrary – data routinely suggests that the stadium is at best, an economic push, and may even be a drain on the hosting community. This is quite different from any of the retail propositions Andy refers to.
I guess Marty wants to identify stadium opponents who, like Marty and SS have asserted offensive statements . . I s’pose in Marty’s mind this rationalizes attitudes and behavior patterns Marty and SS have been such consistant promoters of. . and, certainly there have been offenses on both sides of this debate.
But here is the important point for those who have just tuned in to this discussion, perhaps residents in San Jose or anywhere else that are researching this topic in hopes of making an informed decision about whether or not they feel a stadium is beneficial to their community –
Those who will economically benefit from a stadium represent a small group of interests. These few actual economic beneficiaries, cheered on by their emotional-filled athletic supporters have routinely resorted to the use of emotional imagery, banter and rhetoric. They consistanlty refuse to engage ANY of the MOUNTAINS of data contrary to their claims and assertions.
Having participated in this dialogue since the earliest days of its inception, I conclude that if there is a quick conclusion one can draw about this debate it can only be that (as a group) the opponents of stadium developments consistantly encourage any concerned party to review and consider indpendant data as a basis for their decisions while proponents (as a group) discourage consideration of INDEPENDANT information and seek to discredit personality traits of those with whom they disagree.
December 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Box, I never take issue with offensive statements made by other posters. But I do like to call ‘Fremont Lifer’ out on his pathological hypocrisy.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Bbox I am not confused. Here is your buddy FremontLifer’s comments:
“True, a stadium would bring a lot of people to Fremont, which is part of the problem. How do we handle crowd control, traffic issues and the costs of road repair due to increased traffic? Our City budget is already strained to cover the costs of public safety and road maintenance. I recall Gus posting on the miniscule percentage of sales tax that the City actually receives back after it filters through the State and County.
I believe that the cross-town business loss B is referring to may be analogous to the effect that putting a WalMart in a city has on existing mom-and-pop businesses – they wither and die. We already have two WalMarts, busily knocking off local businesses even before the economy went south. ”
I dont know why the liberals hate walmart so much. Is it because of the unions policy there? Its a free market and if walmart can do better than mom-n-pop stores then so be it.
December 26th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
This is a ”public perception” issue! Fremont who has just lost it’s #1 employer needs help. The nimby mob could care less. I say lets build Cisco field where the soon to be abandoned Nummi plant now stands! Philadelphia, San Francisco,, Baltimore, Denver, and Washington, D.C. all benefited from new stadiums coming to their communities and that is undeniable. Job creation and tax revenue benefits are part of the deal folks. Maybe it’s not the best deal but in these trying times come on time to do whats right for the good of our boring bedroom community. When you ain’t got nothing you got nothing to lose…I say every Smith , Jones, Wong, Kahn and Singh should all get behind this for and send a message to the Bboxes of the world that their nay saying gas is ill-relevant!
December 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Andy – thanks, I agree – I think you did a fine job of reconfirming BOTH of my original points.
SS – Once again – you’re sorely mistaken – this is much much more than a “public perception” issue – - – Stadiums (or any community development) are, FIRST, an “economic issue”- – - I encourage you to present some independant economic data supportive of your myriad claims of jobs and economic benefit (here or in other communities) .
If you can’t do so, then – - – - well – - – - -I whole heartedly encourage you to just keep on ranting on – - – - I can think of very few activities which would allow the pro-stadium folks to do more to encourage more anti-stadium thinkers than your continued rantings.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Keeping the issue alive on these blogs is important, but the best way to voice your position (in lieu of a stadium referendum) is to actively campaign against any FCN endorsed council candidate, who in my estimation is likely to be Vinnie Bacon.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Marty, are you really Bob Wiekowski?
December 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am
To all you so called “anti-stadium thinkers” you may choose to continue in a declamatory manner or and “think” about this. If your point is Comerica Park, Camden Yards, Great American Ball Park, Coors Field, Nationals Park and all the major league baseball stadium built in the last few years along with the teams representing those communities are on the road to ruins… I guess I didn’t get that e-mail? Has professional baseball not been a economic boon for those communities? Is your side is saving Fremont from a similar fate? Marlins Ballpark is due to open in 2012 so may not be to late to rescue the good people of Miami for the apocalyptic consequences that could have destroyed are sleepy bedroom community if the As were allowed to come here. Nummi (tick tick tick) will be closing soon so many thanks to the “anti-stadium thinkers” for doing what’s best for Fremont.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
OOOOOO – SS – we’re scared of not having jobs !!
Cuz those stadium jobs would be real good ‘uns !
I culd subsidize the mony I make selling tube socks out of my trunk on those off days with a gud job at the stadeum !
SS – just get some data – something (ANYTHING !) from an independant source which (who) does not stand to gain (or lose) from investments in stadia – - – - serve it up SS – - – back up your claims – - – - -go find something of substance – - – we’ve all been waiting for . .tick tick tick .
December 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Post #47 -
Dude do you think businesses and politicians always do whats in the best interest of the taxpayers ? Do you think that ego doesnt drive people to do stupid things ? Do you think money into the hands of a few people doesnt make up the difference ?
December 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Marty,
Are you flip-flopping on the stadium issue? I went back and found the following quotes from you. I’m just surprised you would turn out to be so rabidly anti-FCN when you were in obvious agreement with them on their founding issue.
“I’ve been very vocal on this forum about my opposition to the A’s coming to Warm Srings.”
“Traditional or not, stadiums are financial drags on host cities. I think that’s been established as fact, despite the hopes we have that *our* stadium will be different.”
“Our mayor has neither the balls nor the skills to bring the A’s to Fremont on *our* terms. I think that is the crux of the problem. Warm Springs is guaranteed to lose, where SoMa was destined to win.”
“Does Waste-of-space-erman really want 5-10 percent of his city slinging hot dogs?”
Links:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/02/24/as-to-fremont-dead/#comment-4634
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/02/08/second-stadium-protest-called-for-tuesday/#comment-3891
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/02/06/the-as/#comment-3802
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/02/06/the-as/#comment-3808
December 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Mr. Squid,
I did a simple Google search of the parks that you listed. I found the following quotes below. I failed to find evidence that these parks had a positive impact on the economic development of the surrounding area as you imply.
I apologize for the very lengthy post. There is so much information on this. The first link is very recent a good read. While it focuses on Cincinnati, it’s a good overview of the financial problems that sports facilities can bring.
Great America Ball Park –
The plan went awry almost from the start. The football stadium exceeded its budget by $50 million, forcing the county to issue more bonds. Forecasts for growth in the sales tax turned out to be too rosy. The teams received sweetheart leases. In 2000, voters threw out the county commissioners who cut the deal. …
So they have ordered more cuts in basic county administrative services, …
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/sports/25stadium.html
Nationals Park –
The ballpark’s budget hit $687.5 million by the end of September, according to a monthly report produced by the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, which oversaw the construction of the stadium. Thousands of unfinished work items and a final land acquisition bill $50 million over estimates have pushed the stadium’s price tag 11 percent above the oft-quoted $611 million figure.
“At this rate it’ll take us 100 years to recoup our money on this thing,” said at-large D.C. Councilman David Catania, a longtime stadium critic. “What a colossal waste of money. We’re never going to get out of subsidizing the Washington Nationals.”
The sports commission, meanwhile, is bleeding money. The agency is supposed to cover its expenses with event fees earned at RFK Stadium and the D.C. Armory, but its recent struggles have required a bailout.
Link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Nationals_Park_costs_rise_sports_commission_struggles.html
Nationals Park II -
Baseball stadium backers promised a lively entertainment district when the D.C. government poured nearly $700 million into building Nationals Park: a hub of bustling shops, restaurants, hotels, condos and office towers to draw patrons year-round
But as the Nationals take the field for their second season at the ballpark, there won’t be much entertainment outside. In a few weeks, a developer expects to set up a lonely beer tent on an empty lot across the street.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041102036.html
Comerica Park –
Unfortunately, all the expected revenues fail to make a difference in the well being of the city. Infrastructure suffers and new amenities are slow to emerge. Successful sports franchises with shiny new stadiums are not enough to revitalize a major size city by themselves. Without the promise of new industry, jobs and creative attractions, Detroit will continue to languish as a city lacking direction. … The reality is that when the dust settles, not much will have changed for the city’s residents or economy.
Link: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/74472/the_detroit_tigers_are_in_the_2006.html?cat=14
Camden Yards –
Even at Camden Yards, public expenditure on the baseball stadium cannot be justified on grounds of local economic development. If the public subsidy is justified at all, such justification must rest on public consumption externalities which accrue to Baltimoreans as a result of the presence of the Orioles.
Link: http://www.econ.jhu.edu/people/hamilton/camden.pdf
Coors Field –
“A lot of people will tell you the ballpark turned around the area, but it didn’t. The neighborhood was already on the upswing,” Tom Noel, a professor at the University of Colorado, Denver, who specializes in the city’s history, said in a phone interview after the tours. Noel voted against the sales tax measure, which lost in the city of Denver but gained enough votes in the suburbs to win.
Even Coors Field backers acknowledge that the downtown growth coincided with the overall economic boom of the late 1990s. In addition, critics point out that other than brew pubs and restaurants, the area immediately around Coors Field has yet to attract significant retail development.
Link: http://www.matr.net/article-3913.html
December 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Thank you,Bbox, so much for your continued reasonable, informed attempts at pointing out to the factually challenged why so many people here in town have realized that the stadium proposal would have been a sink-hole of debt for Fremont. It can’t be easy, but you’re a determined guy and I sure appreciate it. I think your comment that some of the posts of the pro-stadium folks support our arguments is so true. You can tell a lot about people by how they respond when challenged. Good on ya’.
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
Of course, there’s always the better alternative:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoTheAntiWalMart.aspx
Costco even had the smarts to be against the stadium proposal.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Nationals Park what a success — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803742.html
December 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Thank you,Bbox, so much for your continued reasonable, informed attempts at pointing out to the factually challenged why so many people here in town have realized that the stadium proposal would have been a sink-hole of debt for Fremont. It can’t be easy, but you’re a determined guy and I sure appreciate it. I think your comment that some of the posts of the pro-stadium folks support our arguments is so true. You can tell a lot about people by how they respond when challenged. Good on ya’.
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
Of course, there’s always the better alternative:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoTheAntiWalMart.aspx
Costco even had the smarts to be against the stadium proposal.
(tried posting this once and it disappeared – apologies in advance if it duplicates)
December 27th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Sorry for second post, but one more recent about how Nationals Park has failed to bring the boom that was promised with a new stadium.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041102036.html?hpid=artslot
December 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Box, there are many research jobs that were brought to SF in part because the Giants ballpark attracted biotech firms to a redeveloped China Basin.
And, I don’t have time to find the link, but a so called stadium economist you incessantly link to is a hack-for-hire who will conclude any thesis you pay him to. In fact the tobacco industry hired your oft-linked organization, as do anti-development zealots such as yourself.
The fact of the matter is NUMMI is gone and Fremont west is a wasteland. You, the FCN and Vinnie Bacon have little else to contribute beyond arm-chair opposition. As soon as you people start presenting an actual vision for Fremont, your work to demolish the visions of others will be met with resistance.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Marty brought up a good point. What stops people from starting their tech companies in fremont? They would rather pay even double the rent in peninsula. why? why?
Fremont is considered boring. Good smart people dont want to move into fremont and do not want to work here. Having a stadium here plus the restaurants/pubs will definitely improve the likability of this city.
The studies have to be made with a particular city in mind. Adding one more stadium to a big city like sf is not going to do any good. We all know that. Bay area is unique, so generic studies done elsewhere do not apply here
December 28th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Nothing is forever as pointed out in this Wall Street Journal article:
“Last-Minute Gift Ideas: Old Stadiums”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612111114848276.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_lifestyle
December 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Marty – Marty – Marty – Marty -
Wow – your claim could be a very damaging – — – - if you can substantiate it and IF the ONE author you site were the SOLE basis or our thinking and claims. . . . .
But whomever you are referring to ISN’T the sole author of these studies or data – - – there are many.
So – have at it – when you get the time.
(Wow – is THAT your BEST shot ???)
P.S. –
There’s a vision I and others have for Fremont and I’d love to share those thoughts with individuals who exhibit respect for thought and are interested in discussion of ideas based on information and knowledge and who do not exhibit pretentiousness and arrogance or who are just plain rude. Unfortunately based on many of your dialogues in this BLOG alone – I dont feel that you fill that particular billet.
Finally – - – the topic here is a proposed stadium, so, I’ll try to remain on topic – - perhaps you and your team mates can try to do similarly.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
OK, I’ve been trying to post a comment for two days now and it never shows in the thread – what’s up with that, Matt? Others appear to be able to post.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Bbox, Debating with you is like A-Rod playing T-Ball.
“if you can substantiate…”
Raymond Keating cited by you:
“the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.” Raymond Keating, the Small Business Survival Committee’s chief economist, agrees: “The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8520
Raymond Keating cited by you, again:
“Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.” Raymond Keating, the Small Business Survival Committee’s chief economist”
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8529
And, again (sigh):
Raymond Keating, the Small Business Survival Committee’s chief economist, agrees: “The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8568
Even Irv got in on the Keating orgy:
Stadium advocates have been amazingly successful in taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Some wealthy sports moguls, such as Managing General Partner Al Davis of the NFL Oakland Raiders, have turned mulcting taxpayers into an art form. Raymond Keating, chief economist for the Small Business Survival Committee
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8519
Raymond Keating and the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC), as described from Source Watch:
SBSC is an industry-funded organization that has campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry and against open source software. The organization appeared on a 2000 Philip Morris list of National allies…. in 1997 Raymond J. Keating was the chief economist of SBSF… a position he still holds at SBSC.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Small_Business_Survival_Committee
Not only should you consider my claims “substantiated”, you should also consider yourself discredited.
Cheers.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Bbox, Debating with you is like A-Rod playing T-Ball.
“if you can substantiate…”
Raymond Keating cited by you:
“the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.” Raymond Keating, the Small Business Survival Committee’s chief economist, agrees: “The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8520
Raymond Keating cited by you, again:
“Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.” Raymond Keating, the Small Business Survival Committee’s chief economist”
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8529
And, again (sigh):
Raymond Keating, the Small Business Survival Committee’s chief economist, agrees: “The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8568
Even Irv got in on the Keating orgy:
Stadium advocates have been amazingly successful in taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Some wealthy sports moguls, such as Managing General Partner Al Davis of the NFL Oakland Raiders, have turned mulcting taxpayers into an art form. Raymond Keating, chief economist for the Small Business Survival Committee
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/10/19/off-topic/#comment-8519
Raymond Keating and the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC), as described from Source Watch:
SBSC is an industry-funded organization that has campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry and against open source software. The organization appeared on a 2000 Philip Morris list of National allies…. in 1997 Raymond J. Keating was the chief economist of SBSF… a position he still holds at SBSC.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Small_Business_Survival_Committee
Not only should you consider my claims “substantiated”, you should also consider yourself discredited.
Cheers.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Same here, Lifer. I think when web pages are linked in the comment it gets put into a moderator’s queue. Since my links schooled bbox, and your links schooled me, perhaps we cancelled each other out.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Same here. I’ve got a couple of comments with links awaiting moderation. One of them has the following quote.
“Traditional or not, stadiums are financial drags on host cities. I think that’s been established as fact, despite the hopes we have that *our* stadium will be different.”
Any idea who said that?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
That was Marty, of course
December 29th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Just the facts please….
From Field of Schemes web site:
Judith Grant Long’s data on full public cost of stadiums and arenas
Where most “stadium cost” charts just rely on self-reporting by teams, Harvard researcher Long has actually attempted to calculate the public and private costs of every major-league stadium and arena in North America, including hidden subsidies like free land, lease breaks, and tax exemptions. Long is currently working on a book on this subject; until then, these archives of her research are the best source for complete cost information.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070706222247/http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/long.html
Professor Long’s recently completed research includes a study of public/private partnerships for the financing, design, and development of major league sports facilities, funded by HUD and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The summary article “Full Count: The Real Cost of Public Funding for Major League Sports Facilities” will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Sports and Economics.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Vinnie, regarding post # 50:
I thought the Auto Mall site was a good idea and loosely supported it. I think many in Fremont agreed with me. One thing could be sure, those who would later become the mob in Warm Springs (future members of the FCN) didn’t see much of a problem with a ballpark in Fremont West at the time.
When the site moved to north of NUMMI, my first reaction was discontent, mainly because timing of the announcement being conveniently after the election. (Though, the “Waste-of-space-erman” comment was a play on the many creative terms Warble used to refer to our mayor).
When it became apparent that the FCN’s roots were not only laid in a foundation of NIMBY-ism, but the mob had gelled into a movement that opposed a Fremont A’s in any shape, form, location or other wise, I then changed my tact.
See, Vinnie. I am able to live and work within the many gray areas of an issue. I never saw the issue in black and white terms as being either a bad stadium deal, or no stadium deal. I wanted city officials (and hopefuls) to work toward the fanchise funding police, traffic and other issues. You and the FCN could care less about the heavy lifting. It was easier to just oppose the whole damn thing.
You and the FCN work in similar fashion with regards to Patterson Ranch. You don’t work on forging the development into a more scaled and sensible form. You don’t do the hard work or contacting foundations around the Bay Area to work in concert with the Patterson’s to preserve the site closest to the marsh Coyote Hills (similar to the foundations who helped restore the wetlands across the bay). Instead, you and the FCN just oppose the whole damn thing.
Now that NUMMI is all but gone the situation will dictate a bit of evolution, again. And that may include developing the NUMMI site with or without the A’s. I won’t support anybody who wont even consider the possibility of a ballpark being part of that development.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Marty -
Thank you for making my original point.
Of the many dozens of sources cited in this and several other stadium-development-related BLOG’s which substantiate the flaws in stadium economics and the publicly produced EIR’s that local communities and developers produce to rationalize same – You have an issue with one of those sources.
Also – thanks for keeping up with the personalized and off-topic agenda.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:55 am
RE Marty’s post #65 – I think (Marty) accurately portrays the evolution of stadium opposition POST the creation of FCN.
PRIOR to the creation of the WS site option and the eventual evolution of FCN (which bbox231 played no part in)
THere were folks in Fremont identifying and discussing some very serious flaws with the original stadium at Pac Com. Gus and Fremont Bill participated in those earliest of BLOG discussions long before FCN and BANG had a clue.
bbox231 was initially opposed to the development in Pac Commons for the same reasons expressed by the major retailers in that area – and which were obvious to anyone with a half ounce of common sense – the convergence of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the 880/Automall exit and the inabiity to adequately manage parking on game days (e.g., keeping stadium goers from parking in retail lots) effectively made game day a “no sale” business day for many in the area. As stadium planning progressed, I attempted to seek out other data sources about the impact of these things and have been apalled at the landslide of INDEPENDANT data that overwhelmingly asserts these as a losing economic proposition. The rest is history.
The evolution of these earliest of stadium concerns can be found at http://www.talkfremont.com – - – As mentioned – Gus and Fremont Bill were two of the few BLOG’ers with discussions therein – - No Marty – opposition and concerns re the stadium go back way beyond your. So – FCN MAY have “gelled” into one of total opposition but SOME of us have been consistantly challenging the wisdom of these “investments” from the start.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“See, Vinnie. I am able to live and work within the many gray areas of an issue.” Translation: “I flip-flopped. Now I’m going to try and put down you and others that researched an issue, came to a conclusion, and still believe in that conclusion.”
I did originally have an open mind about the A’s at Pacific Commons. I quickly saw the numerous problems that were not being properly addressed. My campaign team and I researched the issue and documented these problems in my position paper which concluded:
“Unless a proposal can be developed with clear, funded resolutions to the key issues facing the ballpark, I don’t believe the City should go forward with the proposed project.”
Of course, neither the City nor the A’s ever presented such a proposal. Without that, I could not get behind the Pacific Commons site.
There was actually a lot of debate in FCN about whether to oppose only the Warm Springs site or both sites. FCN did do an enormous amount of research on the subject and concluded, the same as you, that “stadiums are financial drags on host cities”. For this and other reasons, they took a position against the Pacific Commons site and the Warm Springs site.
The Friends of Coyote Hills did talk with Patterson Ranch representatives. I personally met with them a few times and attended their public meetings. FCH did work with numerous organizations and tried various tactics to get the land preserved. They’ve looked at their latest proposals and simply don’t think either of them are good for Fremont.
The bottom line is that FCH and FCN are decent people who are fighting for what they think is best for their city. They are community activists who have taken time from their busy lives to get involved in Fremont politics and raise awareness about a number of issues. I applaud their efforts and would argue that this kind of activity is something that Fremont sorely needs.
What have you done to make Fremont a better place to live besides anonymously posting rude, indecent and argumentative comments on this blog?
December 29th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Sure, Vinnie. I’m “rude, indecent and argumentative” because I disagree with you. Fremont Lifer is just a concerned community activist… because he agrees with you.
My contribution to making Fremont a better place will be more obvious once you announce your candidacy.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
No Marty, you are mistaken (again) –
No one here has defended any of the rude behavior or commentary in this BLOG – as exhibited by you or by others.
There is no double standard exhibited by Bacon as you infer.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Sure, box. Vinnie just thanks Fremont Lifer after his rude, indecent and argumentative comments:
Comments 7 & 8: http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/09/29/tit-for-tat/#comment-8442
Box, can you make one statement that’s defendable?
December 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
71 comments on a dead issue. Wow! The stadium issue was essentially dead before it was even submitted, and not because of anything done in Fremont or by Fremont citizens or elected officials. It was dead because the A’s would not acknowledge the obvious problems with their preferred site and made no effort to offer any kind of rational solution to the access, traffic, or parking problems raised by the project.
I met with Lew Wolfe very early in the process and suggested he do a traffic study and have a mitigation plan in hand before he started the process. I suggested he do a “fatal flaws” analysis and identify those flaws which would kill the project no matter what he did. He rejected my free advice, preferring to proceed with the very expensive studies required by the process and wait for the data.
As facts came in, to my mind, when the EIR was in a draft stage around election time last year, I am convinced, although I have no proof, they suddenly realized they could not make the site at Pacific Commons work and they moved over to WS, without doing any work to identify problems. Their total effort was like a bull in a china shop, no finesse at all.
As for the economics of the stadium proposal, the A’s submitted an economic analysis (self serving) which reveals much of the data needed to see if the project makes sense. The jobs it creates are concessions and parking attendants. The non player salaries average about $25,000. The total ticket revenue, added to the A’s share of the concessions, does not cover the players’ salaries, meaning that more than $80 million is transferred from the bay area to somewhere else in the country or world.
There is a report, cited earlier in this thread, of a study of restaurants near baseball stadia during the strike in the 1990′s which showed no difference in their revenue with or without baseball.
There are many experts who have written on the economics of stadia. The web site against the 49er stadium in Santa Clara has links to many of them. The NY Times recently had an article about the Cincinnati situation which, while it is a public financed situation, shows the problems of sports.
In my opinion, having been to many baseball stadiums around the country, the downtown makes the stadium rather than the other way around. If sports facilities make the area better, Hegenberger Road would be a fiscal Garden of Eden.
Why do people fight to get their own major league franchise? Because they want one. Not because they can justify it some way. Not because they have really analyzed the information. Only because they want a team to keep up with the other city which wanted a team.
I think it is time to get on with new topics and look to the future and things which are in our control and which really make a difference to Fremont and the tri cities.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Gus,
Great post. I was thinking about posting about how obnoxious it was to even discuss this. Blog about it all you want, but as of right now, there is NO proposal on the table by the A’s.
However, as this post shows, there are those in Fremont that would suggest we keep up the efforts to bring the A’s here, just in case they do re-apply. Thus, it remains a relevant topic. And, going back to the topic of this post itself, someone is indeed investigating this.
You also once posted advice here that I should just ignore people that are out to attack me. I mistakenly didn’t heed that advice. Maybe I now should.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
In case this finally goes through, this is the third day that I’ve tried to post it.
Thank you,Bbox, so much for your continued reasonable, informed attempts at pointing out to the factually challenged why so many people here in town have realized that the stadium proposal would have been a sink-hole of debt for Fremont. It can’t be easy, but you’re a determined guy and I sure appreciate it. I think your comment that some of the posts of the pro-stadium folks support our arguments is so true. You can tell a lot about people by how they respond when challenged. Good on ya’.
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
Of course, there’s always the better alternative:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoTheAntiWalMart.aspx
Costco even had the smarts to be against the stadium proposal.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
OK, since I can’t get this post to go through in one piece, I’ll try it in sections:
Thank you,Bbox, so much for your continued reasonable, informed attempts at pointing out to the factually challenged why so many people here in town have realized that the stadium proposal would have been a sink-hole of debt for Fremont. It can’t be easy, but you’re a determined guy and I sure appreciate it. I think your comment that some of the posts of the pro-stadium folks support our arguments is so true. You can tell a lot about people by how they respond when challenged. Good on ya’.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Part deux:
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
Of course, there’s always the better alternative:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoTheAntiWalMart.aspx
Costco even had the smarts to be against the stadium proposal.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Part deux:
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
December 29th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I know we don’t have Batman or Robin but thank goodness Fremont has Bacon, Gus, Bbox and all the so called “anti-stadium thinkers” saving us tri city residents from the apocalyptic consequences major league baseball would bring. By the way did you hear fellah NUMMI is closing shop? Vinnie your Tolstoy-esque post #51 (simple Google search??!) was impressive but again your missing the point. The point is Fremont needs to become something more than it is…a boring bedroom community with barely enough culture to fill a bowl of yogurt. Is foiling the big bad “Lew “Wolf what you “anti-stadium thinkers” think is best for our community? Well boys and girls your wrong …or the good people of Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, Denver, and Washington, D.C. Cincinnati, St. Louis, Seattle all are knuckle heads. Some of you might remember the area South of Market before Pac Bell Park. No one except Bacon & Gus in their capes would venture their much? The hood was bad dudes! But look what baseball did to turn that area into the jewel it is today. C YA…
December 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
SS –
SOMO “grew up” as much as a result of the dot-com boom as anything, but once again – we’re off topic. . . . .the developments in that area resulted largely from the incessant demand for dot-commers office space and retail that accompanied. But, that’s another (unrelated) story – - – - But let’s follow your thinking there’s another example of what what a stadium will do almost directly due east- – - take a look at Oakland – you know, the CURRENT home of the A’s – take a look at the area around Hegenberger – - – - that’s Wolfe’s current neighborhood…. Here is another example of what a stadium MIGHT do – and what the A’s HAVE done.
If there are knuckleheads in this debate they can only be those who continue to attempt rational conclusions with baseless inuendo, name-calling, and “visionary” anecdote. . . .
A “boring bedrooom community” is one characterization of our city. I’m sorry you feel that way.
Since you’re feeling a little challenged for things exciting, here’s a suggestion – - Why not catch the next BART train out of town and into Oakland – get off anywhere – - I’m told that there’s all kinds of “action” up there . . . some of it might even be legal.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Thanks for those words of levity, Lifer. You really know how to turn the cuckoo on and off. You’re really Fremont’s local equivalent of Dylan Avery, or any other insane person who cannot deal with reality.
(No need to thank me, Vinnie. It’s understood)
December 29th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Now we’re talking!
December 29th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
And Gus, again – you are right on the money.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Except, since I believe in the vision of a real downtown and think Central Park for the stadium and the Central Business District should be the place for Ballpark Village – I say let’s vote on whether even to study it!
At least that’s better than letting Fred have another chance at trying to pull one over on us!
Let’s VOTE!
December 29th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Bbox is your “action” in Oakland a RACIST COMMENT? Please stay on subject… I’m afraid your dunce cap might be a little tight ..Play ball!!!
December 30th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Not one new post by Matt, Ben or Linh since 12/21. But, thanks to the tireless CPR efforts of those who don’t understand the word “no,” this thread continues to live and LaBoca is reincarnated as Anon101!
December 30th, 2009 at 8:10 am
It’s whoever is behind the phone survey and the one who decided to ask applicants for Project Manager in Redevelopment – that won’t take “no” for an answer!
AND interestingly,it’s the City Manager/Executive Director of Redevelopment (aka Fred Diaz) who publicly stated to Matt back in September that HE still wants the A’s to happen in “Fredmont”!!!
So if he’s still at it – I say long live La Boca and the call for a public process!
December 30th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Or should we wait until after the next election for him to show his cards? (Like the last election)
December 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Re post #81 -
Leave it to a stadium supporter to miss the obvious and spin into the lowest of the least common denominator(s). Nice job SS !
Wolfe must be PROUD to share your company !
BANG BLOG “hits” and “Google Ads” revenue certainly has to be peaking just before the end of the year.
Can you say “Someone made their end-of-year goal or target ?”
Here’s a sequence of some key events if you haven’t been around for the duration -
12/15 Wolfe and Co encounter a little headwind -
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_14006251?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
12/17 Wolfe and Co encounter a minor legal squall –
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_14020546?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
12/17 Someone decides it might be a good idea to make some random phone calls to some notable Fremont chatters – which is sure to get things stirred up and POOF ! – Vinnie and “Bruce” announce that they have received phone calls from someone doing a survey – Posts #9 and #10 here precipitate a BANG BLOG diatribe not seen since the original Fremont stadium stampede – http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2009/09/18/fremont-still-wants-to-play-ball/#comments
12/21 Argus (and other concerned public media) remind San Jose’ans that Oakland is ALSO now a contender with possible alternative suggestions http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_14027303?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
Everyone goes home for the holidays.
Who benefitted ?
Follow the money.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“LaBoca is reincarnated as Anon101″
Ha Ha Ha. Though I remember LaBoca being a meaner dog.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Well, part one made it (finally) – maybe part two will too:
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
Of course, there’s always the better alternative:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoTheAntiWalMart.aspx
Costco even had the smarts to be against the stadium proposal.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
OK, let’s try part two:
Fremont Bill, you crack me up! What a great guess!
For more info, Andy, on the evils of Wal-Mart, try:
http://walmartwatch.com/issues/
December 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I agree with Gus that we should look to the future and things that are within our control. I agree with Vinny that there is no stadium proposal on the table at this time, so why talk about it. However, a systemic problem in this town is that we never know what is really on the table at any given time because there is a big wall in City Hall designed to keep information in and the people out. If we limit ourselves to dealing with things that are within our control as defined by City Hall, we’ll end up hip deep in Hooters, water parks, and long-term contracts for Freddy Diaz. Eternal vigilance appears required.
Vinnie, I don’t know what to tell you about the attackers from outer Beckistan – some people you just can’t reason with, so your dammed if you try and dammed if you don’t. One of the joys of running for/holding public office, apparently. Us civilians can simply ignore them. Good luck.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Whether you agree with Mr. Bacon or not he has forthrightly stated his stance on issues facing our city. During the last city council election he posted his position on line for all to read. He has responded to all comments made on this blog and done so without the use of a pseudonym. That counts for something.
Re: reincarnation – Anon101 seems to have the inner workings of the city’s staff pegged. La Boca had worked for the city and originated the idea of the stadium in Central Park.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Unlike BBox I’m not afraid of the big bad Wolfe. Here is who will benefit. FREMONT!
More spending and new jobs.
Building a stadium create construction jobs…NO? The fans who will be going to the games or those who work for the team will be spending cash in our community…NO? That will create more local jobs… NO? The Fremont A’s will bring in tourists and no doubt corporate interest in turn our boring bedroom community would benefit…NO?
More spending and new jobs. YES!
December 30th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Think about an All-Star game or a World Series in Fremont! Absolutely guaranteed in out lifetime if a stadium were built.
But, Swamp, get real – the data obviously show that Sanjay-taxpayer has to compensate for the financial strain of hosting a sports team (just like he compensates for parks and police and schools and performing arts centers). It’s kind of like buying a martini at a bar. Why, when they sell vodka at FoodMaxx? That’s Fremont in a nutshell.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
No one is talking about it. Demographics of fremont do not support any upscale food or retail. Wonder why? Fremont’s average household income is pretty high.. but wait look at the % of asians. We know the spending patterns of asian. If fremont want to build up a central business district or centerville or whatever, it has to bring in out of town people. Anybody who denies that is living in a dream.
People here have made statements like ” stadium brings in low income jobs which is crap. We need top notch R&D, startups and thats where the focus should be”. I find this ludicrous. Fremont’s image is crap right now, stop dreaming about getting R&D here before you improve the image of the city.
Now the question how to bring in out of town people? increase the cool factor. If not stadium, what else. Does anybody have a plan? A’s naysayers, if you are commited to no development at all in fremont, then say so. That will atleast be a principled stand.
Traffic congestions in Pacific Common? heheha. I’d say we barely need a signal there. Stop signs would suffice. Except for costco and the asian side, rest of it all sitting idle. Restaurants, businesses going down.
Do people need a phd in city planning to get this straight.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Siegfried and Zimbalist (2000) “..independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1992; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll and Zimbalist, 1997; Waldon, 1997; Coates and Humphreys, 1999).
These results stand in distinct contrast to the promotional studies that are typically done by consulting firms under the hire of teams or local chambers of commerce …”
Coates and Humphreys (2003)
“Local political and community leaders and the owners of professional sports teams frequently claim that professional sports facilities and franchises are important engines of economic development in urban areas. These structures and teams allegedly contribute millions of dollars of net new spending annually and create hundreds of new jobs, and provide justification for hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies for the construction of many new professional sports facilities in the United Sates over the past decade. Despite these claims, economists have found no evidence of positive economic impact of professional sports teams …..”
Coates and Humphreys (2008)
“There now exists almost twenty years of research on the economic impact of professional sports franchises and facilities on the local economy. The results in this literature are strikingly consistent. No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economics journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact ….”
December 31st, 2009 at 8:31 am
Andy, I think every large city needs out of towner tax revenue to survive. SF is a prime example, as their 750,000 residents would have no hope of sustaining their government on their own.
San Jose in the 1980′s is similar to Fremont today. The redevelopment push since then has rendered San Jose a convention center, museums, a performance theater, a professional sports arena, a redeveloped downtown (which is still struggling), and spots of commerce and residential such as Santana Row and some redeveloped shopping centers in East SJ.
I don’t think Fremont has any hope of getting any of those in my lifetime, and I’m in my 30s. Unfortunately, if Fremont doesn’t step up to it’s position and start acting like the fourth largest city in the Bay Area, it’s fate will be similar to other uninspiring cities – think Newark, San Leandro, etc. As a result, we will have tremendous trouble funding our city government as that out of towner tax revenue will be even more nonexistent.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:07 am
I absolutely agree with Marty’s statement that we need to step up and start acting like a major resident of the Bay Area community !
Marty draws a fair comparison and describes an evolution of cities considerably larger than ours. SF and San Jose possess many amenities not found in our city. Both operate public airports for example. As marty points out, it might be wise to learn from their approach to development and planning.
Neither S.F. nor S.J. plopped a stadium down in the midst of their fledgling suburban community as a precursor or initiator of growth – - lots of other priorities preceded their respective ballparks.
In each case that Marty sites loads of successful redevelopment activities in separate districts created a city unified by name, but separated by districts. Each district was unique in their social makeup. Successful and hard working city managers and staff and Council leadership partnered with LOCAL businesses and citizens to enhance and polish the richness of each of these unique districts. Sufficiently so that many became attractive to the out-of-towners that marty alludes to.
Contrast the evolution of these two successful cities with the preoccupation of our leaders who have proferred a vision of a “central downtown location” or more recently, a common focal point (stadium) which is to bequeath residents some mystical and missing ingrediant which will transform our city from dull and dreary into “world class”.
Contrast the RESULTS of RDA expenditures in San Jose or San Francisco with that of Fremont; which has been stuck in the proverbial Centerville mud for . . . . how many years now ?
Marty – it is not the absence of a stadium that holds us back.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:11 am
…it’ the lack of leadership that values a truly transparent public participator procees that holds Fremont back!
December 31st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Like Pavlov’s dogs, any mention of a stadium starts people salivating. If people would just stop reacting, maybe Matt or someone else would open a new thread and we could argue about something else for a change. No one is convincing anyone else. Minds are set in concrete (including mine) and this is all an exercise in futility.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
In all respect Gus, this is about more than the stadium: it has to do with how you were robbed of votes in the last election – by the City Manager witholding the news about WS as an alternative location for the stadium until after the last election so as to not loose votes for the Mayor (previously his emploee in Tracy) …and it has to do with FULL disclosure going into the next election.
December 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
The stadium question certainly affects other commmunities beyond ours, Gus. And at the end of the day, you and others who feel they have nothing to gain – - – can choose to look elsewhere.
Just as the lack of a stadium isn’t (IMHO) a major hinderance to our future success, there is absolutely nothing that prevents Matt from opening new topics and nothing which requires you or others to participate or not.
Sorry you find your time or energies somehow wasted.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
B in the box, Gus and all of the“anti-stadium thinkers out yonder … Time to play ball!
“I pity the fool who could doubt that millions of fans spending cash money at the idyllic setting of Cisco Field will not increase economic growth of Fremont?” (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr -2009)
“The most significant contribution of sports is likely to be in the area of intangibles. The image of a city is certainly affected by the presence of
professional franchises” (Baade, 1996: 35).
The “’psychological health’ of a city is just as important as its fiscal condition. Thus, investment in cultural and recreational activities is a common and expected practice of municipal government” (Johnson, 1986: 423).
Events at sports stadiums have the potential for attracting large crowds from outside the core. Spending could conceivably spill outside the stadium to other commercial activities in the city. If the stadium can be used for enough near-capacity events, the benefits to the city could be substantial. Public officials have bought into this logic, and, thus stadiums are often viewed as an economic development tool for reclaiming urban activities that have been lost to the suburbs.
(Baade and Dye, 1988: 266).
That’s a bingo!
December 31st, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Wonderful sentiments, SS -
Happy new year to you and yours !
January 1st, 2010 at 1:39 am
Amen!
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
Squid,
I appreciate you’re trying to research your side of the issue. However, I didn’t find your quotes convincing.
1) You should end with a joke not lead with it. At first glance I thought all of your quotes were made up.
2) Baade’s point is that there are few measurable (i.e. tangible) benefits leaving only intangible benefits. Are we supposed to go through all of the headaches and costs of a ball park on the hopes that these intangible benefits become something real?
3) I agree with this sentiment. But it hardly leads to the conclusion that we should go out and get a ball park. (Or a water park for that matter.) While we should spend on these things, we should also spend wisely.
4) I’m surprised you picked Baade for your only two relevant quotes. Baade is NOT on your side of this debate. I couldn’t find the full article you mentioned but did find the two references to it below.
” … Baade (in particular) and Dye have come to be associated with the anti-stadium view. … In this piece Baade and Dye argue quite vehemently against the financing of stadia by local governments.”
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~tchapin/garnet-tchapin/stadia/theory.html
“On the sport facility side, numerous researchers have examined the relationship between new facilities and economic growth in metropolitan areas (Baade & Dye, 1990; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll & Zimbalist, 1997; Coates & Humphreys, 1999). In every case, independent analysis of economic impacts made by newly built stadiums and arenas has uniformly found no statistically significant positive correlation between sport facility construction and economic development (Siegfried & Zimbalist, 2000).”
http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/upon-further-review-examination-sporting-event-economic-impact-studies
I also found three quotes from Baade himself.
“After a thorough examination of an unprecedented quantity of data related to professional sports and host area per capita personal income, the author finds no factual basis for the conventional argument that professional sports stadiums and teams have a significant impact on a region’s economic growth.”
http://www.cppa.utah.edu/Perspectives/v2i7_Baadeforpub.pdf
“Do professional sports increase income and create jobs in amounts that justify the behavior of cities? The evidence detailed in this paper fails to support such a rationale.”
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119833113/abstract
“The evidence compiled during more than a decade of research strongly suggests a new baseball stadium will exercise little if any economic impact on the metropolitan Boston economy.”
http://www.savefenwaypark.com/baade/BaadeReport.htm
Finally, I found a paper that analyzed the economic effect of the 1994 baseball strike that Gus had mentioned:
“The most important finding is that the strike had little, if any, economic impact on host cities. Retail trade appeared to be almost completely unaffected by the strike, …”
http://uar.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/157
This is indicative of the research that FCN, Gus, and others have done which have led them to question whether a ball park will have a positive impact on the economy of Fremont.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:37 am
You don’t get it, Vinnie. Some of us think you and the FCN will have a negative impact on Fremont because you have no ideas and oppose every development that ends up on Fremont’s plate.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Marty,
These people Gus, FCN, Vinnie, present data, facts, references.
All you present is innuendoes’ , half truths, inflammatory statements
Which is your right.
Why are you so angry and vindictive? I do not think you get it!
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Should I be *happy* that the advocacy group who denied Fremont a ballpark because of their self interests will be trying to install a candidate who will continue to work against mine?
I am not disputing the studies that Vinnie links to (though I bet they’re conducted by anti-development academics). I am disputing the fact that people in Fremont give a hoot, as don’t most people from 30 major cities around the country.
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Regarding your comment 96, Gus, do I gather that we should not continue to discuss issues of local impact simply because there are two clearly defined sides? By that reasoning, we would never pursue peace in any area of conflict.
While it is true that some opinions will never be changed, not every comment is written with the true believer in mind; some are directed to those who are still “on the fence”.
And how else do you learn the relative strengths and weaknesses of your adversary’s case? Presenting logical arguments in support of your beliefs is good practice for life. Like they tell you in law school, defend your position as to the best of your ability, and never ever give up (unless you get a really good settlement or plea offer).
Since it’s the season, I’m reminded of my dear grandmother’s saying “‘If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a wonderful Christmas it would be”. When it comes to the stadium, so many of the “pro” arguments are liberally peppered with “Ifs and buts”, as opposed to the citations of the “con” side.
There’s another famous quote that also seems to apply: “”If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, bang on the table.” I think that’s what you’re seeing here, Californiaguy.
That being said, it would be nice to discuss something new. It is my sincere hope that this issue has succumbed to the ignominious death it so richly deserves. There are so many other things we can all fight about
January 4th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
If Mr. Squid could clear something up for me from his post #99 – What does Efrem Zimbalist Jr. know about baseball stadiums, suburban planning or local economics? The “77 Sunset Strip” guy? The guy from the old “FBI” TV series? Stephanie Zimbalist’s father? Now that Mr. Zimbalist is paraphrasing Mr. T, we’re supposed to believe that he’s an expert on the business of baseball? Does he own a share of a team or what? Everybody’s entitled to an opinion, but what makes his more valid than any other?
January 4th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Also re: post #99
“The most significant contribution of sports is likely to be in the area of intangibles. The image of a city is certainly affected by the presence of
professional franchises” (Baade, 1996: 35).
The quote says that a professional sports franchise will affect the image of a city – it doesn’t specify whether that contribution will be positive or negative.
Also, some alternative terms for “intangible” are “immaterial”, “vague, and “fleeting”. Not the best basis for the construction of a large project like a stadium.
Municipal government certainly should invest in cultural and recreational activities, but that investment must pay long-term dividends. The city should not speculate with the people’s money.
January 4th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Much thanks for your abridged Tolstoy post #102. Here’s a few back at ya…
“You don’t get it, Vinnie “
-Marty #103
Niles Baxter is kinda getting it. And you gotta admit Stephanie Z (Great Hair) was really hot back in the day…
Yes, Niles B baseball in Fremont would be VERY POSITIVE!
“With a fully operational facility in 2014, the ballpark would produce $130 million in annual economic impact and approximately 1,000 new jobs paying wages of more than $62 million, according to the report. Over a 30-year period, the cumulative economic impact would total $2.9 billion and personal wages paid exceeding $1.3 billion.”
-City of San Jose/Marketwire – September 3, 2009
“And then there are nine major league sports franchises doing business in Florida. They are the second largest economic entity producing tax dollars, approximately $143 million for state and local governments.”
-TheLedger.com 01-26-2006.
“The game is popular. Clubs have done a good job in marketing their product and developing stadiums that are destination points.
-CNNMoney.com 10-25-2007
And here’s one for all you nay sayers. Don’t know if your a sports fan Vinnie but didn’t I see you eating peanuts and cracker jack at Dr. Gs a few week ago? Grandma Renehan would be proud even if Nancy and I had to pick up all the shells you left under the sofa.
“If you truly love the game of baseball, there are still many employment opportunities in and around the ballpark,” Selig said. “We always need ticket-takers, hot-dog vendors, grounds-crew members, and bat boys. Just because you can’t be a baseball player doesn’t mean you can’t be an important part of the game.”
ONION SPORTS 02-22-07
January 4th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Much thanks for your abridged Tolstoy post #102. Here’s a few back at ya…
“You don’t get it, Vinnie “
-Marty #103
Niles Baxter is kinda getting it. And you gotta admit Stephanie Z (Great Hair) was really hot back in the day…
Yes, Niles B it would baseball would be VERY POSITIVE!
“With a fully operational facility in 2014, the ballpark would produce $130 million in annual economic impact and approximately 1,000 new jobs paying wages of more than $62 million, according to the report. Over a 30-year period, the cumulative economic impact would total $2.9 billion and personal wages paid exceeding $1.3 billion.”
-City of San Jose/Marketwire – September 3, 2009
“And then there are nine major league sports franchises doing business in Florida. They are the second largest economic entity producing tax dollars, approximately $143 million for state and local governments.”
-TheLedger.com 01-26-2006.
“The game is popular. Clubs have done a good job in marketing their product and developing stadiums that are destination points.
-CNNMoney.com 10-25-2007
And here’s one for all you nay sayers. Don’t know if your a sports fan Vinnie but didn’t I see you eating peanuts and cracker jack at Dr. Gs a few week ago? Grandma Renehan would be proud even if Nancy and I had to pick up all the shells you left under the sofa.
“If you truly love the game of baseball, there are still many employment opportunities in and around the ballpark,” Selig said. “We always need ticket-takers, hot-dog vendors, grounds-crew members, and bat boys. Just because you can’t be a baseball player doesn’t mean you can’t be an important part of the game.”
ONION SPORTS 02-22-07
January 5th, 2010 at 6:53 am
Psssst…SS, Onion Sports is just a joke. But, you knew that, right?
January 5th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
VOR – re Post 109 and 110
LOL – I *do* think SS quite seriously thought they were making a significant point in their favor . . .
dontcha think the A’s would really LOVE the Fremont conversations to go the heck away . . . . . what was it Abe L. said about “Better to remain silent . . .. .” ?
Thanks to PM re post 106 . . . . I was a little surprised at Gus’ seeming frustration with the ongoing dialogue.
I’m pleased that SOME *get it* – . . . in this day and age of “sound bite” research, most lurkers will – at best – catch the last entry or two or three on a topic of interst and draw a conclusion . . . . Watch the morning news for more than 15 minutes sometime – - kinda the same thing for the exact same reasons. Thank you.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Onion Sports has several funny baseball related articles right now, including one about Abner Doubleday…
BB, I’m just now reading Shelby Foote’s book on the Civil War. I don’t recall the exact Lincoln quote but I get the reference. Basicly, avoid stirring your enemies up until you are ready for them.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Looks like B in the Box missed last nights episode of THE FACTOR… and that guarantees to makes him a grumpy boy!”
(Baade, Dye, Zimbalist and Young 12-20-2012)
“Whip it…Whip it good”
-DEVO
A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have.
-Abraham Lincoln
“The truth is more important than the facts.”
(Frank Lloyd Wright)
That’s a Bingo!
January 5th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Bruce – Hmmm – that’s not quite what I had in mind –
it was Abe Lincoln and as best as I can remember it goes –
“Better to remain silent and be THOUGHT a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.”
Maybe just my mis-reading of their assertions but this anti-stadium crowd certainly has removed all doubt many times over for me . . . . .. . . . I’m certain that Wolfe, Wasserman, and Wieckowski are very, very proud of the efforts of this group.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Bruce – Hmmm – Abe could have been referring to B in the Box when he said …
“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man I ever met.”
January 6th, 2010 at 2:41 am
I agree that Fremont is more of a boring characterless bedroom community that it should or could be. But that does not lead me to the conclusion that we need a stadium. How would a stadium all of a sudden make Fremont a cool place? It takes a lot more than plopping down a stadium/shopping mall/condo complex to make a place cool.