Fremont makes new pitch for the A’s
By Matt Artz
Friday, January 8th, 2010 at 12:17 pm in Uncategorized.
Anyone interested in Major League Baseball in Fremont should read THIS REPORT, which is going to the council Tuesday.
At the request of Major League Baseball, the city presented an “approach” that calls for a 36,000 seat stadium on NUMMI land at the intersection of Fremont and South Grimmer boulevards. The city would own the land and the team would build the stadium, which would be about a half mile west of the location that generated protests in the Weibel neighborhood.
Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig formed a committee last year to determine if there’s a viable ballpark site for the A’s in Alameda County. That committee is scheduled to issue its report to the commissioner later this month, according to Fremont officials.
BTW: Remember that survey people were getting a few weeks ago. A Major League Baseball spokesman said it very may have well been that committee. Although he couldn’t it say it with certainty, he said the commission had been doing research into the A’s and Fremont.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
January 8th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
“The city would own the land…” Does the city currently own the land? If no, where the heck do they get the money to make the purchase from Toyota, NUMMI, GM or whoever owns it? Let’s see, then there’s the environmental cleanup cost… Maybe MLB picks that up. Oh, this should be good.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
From the report:
“…a major catalyst would be required in order to spark
long-term redevelopment [at] the NUMMI site.
“If any preliminary agreement is reached with MLB and the A’s, City staff would also recommend a citywide vote on the project, potentially as early as the November 2010 election.”
I couldn’t be happier with this prospect. It looks like *somebody* better pull their own version of a spark to initiate long term redevelopment at the NUMMI site out of their hat before this summer.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Yes, I wonder what the environmental cleanup costs are and who is going to pay for them.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Interesting point VOR – - – If the city “owns the land” – remediation would most likely be at Fremont expense right ? – - BUT yowsa – WHICH remediation are we talking about here ? ? ? – - – the one following on to NUMMI’s departure or the one following on to Wolfe’s NEXT exodus for free land somewhere else ?
Quick – someone tell me how much it’ll cost us to tear down the stadium at some future date so we can put up something that shouda been there in the first place ??
Hypothetically – I slip and fall on a little patch of ice at the stadium – I break my neck . . . . named in my suit will be the owner/operators of the stadium and let’s not forget the best of all deep pockets – - the city that owns the land it’s built on !!! KA-CHING
Doesn’t this arrangement ensure that any claims against the stadium or its operators will now most certainly also be brought against the City at the same time ??? Somebody said “idemnification” ? Yeah -right – - – this is California baby – - – Better RATCHET UP THOSE PROFESSIONAL FEES in the ol’ operating budget Mr. Diaz !
But hey – - – it wont cost us a dime.
PLAY BALL ! ! ! ! ! !
January 8th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I suppose plopping the ballpark at Grimmer and Fremont allows for the site to be decontaminated and developed in stages. The ballpark can be built without any progress made on the factory structure. The idea is to initiate development in the area.
Regardless, the NUMMI site has to be cleaned up at some point, ballpark or not. And I bet the bill will be sent to the NUMMI partners.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
The GM liquidation company has already said it’s not paying for any of the plant closure costs.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nummi/ci_13764473
January 8th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Kind of makes you wonder if someone was lying when he said “he doesn’t know who’s sponsoring the poll.”
January 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
nothing is impossible, I just hope NIMBYs wont ruin this plan (again)
January 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
For all those pro or con, Major League Baseball has a “contact us” site at
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/help/contact_us.jsp
Where they say that they’d “love to hear your thoughts, comments, and suggestions”. Drop them a line and let them know what you think of the resurrected stadium proposal.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
A series of educated thoughts, without benefit of any research, but probably mostly right.
NUMMI is not in the redevelopment district and it would require an extensive effort to revise the district boundaries to include it. The last modification took around two years.
The city certainly has no money in the general fund to purchase the land.
NUMMI is responsible for the clean up of the property as the owner. Responsibility transfers with the ownership of the land. No rational person or agency would buy the land without knowing the cost of clean up or the extent of any contamination.
Any binding binding ballot measure cannot be put on the ballot without completion of an Environmental Impact Report for the project on that site. To make a November ballot, the final EIR would have to be certified by the city by the beginning of August. The required noticing periods and comment periods would eat up almost all of that time. The only thing that could go on a ballot in November would be an advisory measure.
In the A’s proposal for Pacific Commons, the plan was for the A’s to own the stadium and the ground under it to be owned by a “public agency.” That was buried in the documentation and the agency was never identified. I heard once that it was the county, but cannot be sure.
If it weren’t so darn expensive, I would love to see a completed EIR and an unbiased, independent economic analysis so we could base our support/opposition on the same set of data.
And, I guess if we ever want to finally kill the issue, it requires a stake through it’s heart and bury it face down, so that when it tries to dig itself up, it just gets deeper. One of the things I learned over my 25 years is that, if there is money to be made on something, it never goes away. It just comes up over and over again, maybe a different color or a few different features or embellishments, until a couple of councilmembers change or forget their history and it gets approved.
I’m looking for a stake.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
First of all, I would like to start by saying that it seems the City has abandoned ship on all those who work at NUMMI. What happened to the whole fighting till the end concept spewed at the save NUMMI rally? This isn’t moral, it isn’t right, and it isn’t how Fremont politicians should conduct themselves. They can wave around all the benefits they were supposedly a part of securing, but it all boils down to the fact that most of them never ever gave saving nummi their full attention. It was always all talk, no substance.
So it seems to me that these are the main points:
-How will the City purchase the land?
-How will the environmental cost be accounted for?
-Those two being taken care of, will those of you who opposed the ballpark last time, reconsider your opinion now due to the new location?
Many politicians went crazy the last time this opportunity presented itself. They rushed, made decisions without consulting the people of Fremont, and ended up destroying any possibility of anybody gaining anything from the situation. That is what seems to happen when you pay more attention to attracting campaign donors than you do the needs of your constituency.
I am open to the idea of a ballpark in Fremont. But, I demand that all these major concerns are addressed CLEARLY before we proceed with matters. None of the vague answers we were assured the last time around; I want cold hard facts coming out of City Hall. The incumbency has lost the people’s trust.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Gus, with all due respect, the paltry amenities Fremont has to offer is in large part due to your vision and governance, and you totally missed the boat on the validity of this debate just days ago, considering it a waste of time.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Ishan,
Question #1 – Clearly, no, the City cannot afford to purchase the land. Where would that money come from?
Question #2 – The City can’t afford it, and I doubt if Alameda County can afford it. Who can, these days? Perhaps the pro-stadium folks can pass the hat and come up with, say, $7 million? The question is, do City management qualify as “rational”?
Question #3 – Also, no – As Matt notes, this location is only 1/2 mile from the last location in Weibel, and it comes with its own set of problems.
At least our lamentations of last winter had some purchase if a young guy like you who seemed to be in the “pro” column last year is now demanding that the major concerns inherent in the project be clearly addressed.
Isn’t the City limited in what it can do to aid NUMMI workers? When mega-corporations who operate on an international basis make decisions on what is good for their bottom line, Fremont simply isn’t playing in the same league. Believe me, I wish there was more the City could do; I’m just not sure that our Councilmembers and City management have many options in that regard.
Thanks, Gus for giving me reason to believe – I was running low on antacid and valium. I do hope you’re right. I’ll supply the hammer if you can find the stake.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Gosh, this is all such a surprise?
Gee, do you think the pending 1.1 billion RDA CAP increase from the County has anything to do with this?
Well, you can’t say City staff isn’t noticing the PUBLIC; they have sent out the public notice that there will be a Special Council meeting next Tuesday at 5:00 PM – which meets the 72 hour minimum (not counting the weekend) notice requirement – and the time and day gives us all plenty of time to get to the 5:00 PM meeting from work.
And finally, can’t help but say it: I TOLD YOU SO!
At least it’s all come out BEFORE the election THIS TIME!
Who says that City Manager Fred Diaz doesn’t care about the PUBLIC process? And wow, from not knowing who’s doing the A’s polling to scheduling a special Council meeting on the subject and writing a staff report – while he didn’t know.
And Gus, here’s another educated guess; yes, RDA was going to own the land under the stadium at PC. And Gus, – who say’s they can’t resurrect the old EIR from where they stoped?
January 8th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Yup, Anon, you called it.
Wouldn’t a new EIR be required to address the soil contamination issues at the NUMMI site? From the Merc article cited by Charlotte above:
“There will also be environmental cleanup expenses at the facility, which operated as a GM plant for 20 years before the Toyota tie-up, she said.
This is an old factory, built when rules were quite different,” said Keller, who has covered the auto industry since 1972. “Who knows what kind of environmental issues will have to be resolved?”
GM in July estimated that “wind-down” costs for 16 discarded facilities would exceed $1.25 billion because of environmental cleanup and legal fees.”
January 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Actually Lifer, no. It wouldn’t require starting new EIR – only making sure you taylor the final EIR to address the contaminants at this site.
Regarding remediation of the site (that means clean-up); actually, strangely enough – the worst the site is, the easier it might be to remediate. Example the Sacramento Rail yards project where the some of the project soil is so bad that all you can do is basically cap it over.
Regarding cost; remember, there are a lot of Federal dollars out there for “brown-field” development – based on the same principal as above.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
The southeast corner of Fremont and Grimmer near NUMMI is currently a vacant lot. South of that is a parking lot. The factory itself is about a half mile away.
Has that corner always been vacant? If so, how contaminated would it be?
They’re not talking about tearing down the factory to build the ballpark. It sounds like with the factory closing, NUMMI can no longer object to developing that vacant lot.
There are still all the other ballpark issues which haven’t changed.
It sounds like MLB is making sure all Alameda County options have been exhausted before letting the A’s move to Santa Clara county. This feels like a study for study’s sake, not a legitimate proposal. Wouldn’t MLB (other than the Giants) rather have the A’s next to the Sharks near downtown SJ?
January 8th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Urgent: Please see last paragraph, page 3, of the staff Report:
“it is important to note…not been considered nor endorsed by the City Council”
Gus, I can’t believe my eyes! What say yee know?
January 8th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Correction: Page 3.3
January 8th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Post #10 – “I would love to see a completed EIR and an unbiased, independent economic analysis so we could base our support/opposition on the same set of data.”
Gosh, Gus – me thinks your words just rendered all of those “independent economic analysis” that have been presented herein as effectively neutered . . . . . how quickly we change coats.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
How much time and money has the city been spending on this non-project since last March?
City staff worked with MLB “throughout the summer” and provided “numerous reports, data, and other information as requested for [MLB's] diligence.”
“Staff thought it was important to preserve the opportunity for the City Council”? Who was that?
“City Staff developed a conceptual approach for a mix-use ballpark development . . . .” While the city’s website has links buried in the agenda, they do not (at least for me) seem to link to the actual conceptual approach. Rather, I get a Sept 2009 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Program Executive Report. http://www.fremont.gov/archives/56/011210%20Special%20WS%20Agenda-WEBSITE.pdf
Not very useful time spent.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
The city was making peanuts out of NUMMI anyway. I would oppose the stadium if it results in a tax increase to buy the land or cleanup etc. EIR has to be done anyway if something has to be done in that site. Unless the NIMBYs want to keep a crumbling NUMMI as a historical site.
Guys who oppose A’s please when you oppose A’s come with an alternative revenue generation plan for that site. If you dont have one, I am afraid people are going to ask you politely keep your mouths shut.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Well, Andy, I sure wish I had a handful of big businesses in my back pocket that I could offer to bring to town, but unfortunately I don’t. Most of us don’t.
It is true that, in terms of businesses coming to town, Fremont has to wait to be asked to dance. There is, however, no requirement that we only dance with the ugliest partners. IMO, part of the friction with City Hall has been their tendency to make the path for many businesses all uphill and strewn with boulders, while they identify certain “pet” projects (water park, Center Theater, the stadium) which they have their own reasons for supporting, quite separate and apart from whether they are beneficial to the City and its residents or not.
Do you have a big business that you’d like to open here in town? Good luck with the Planning Department. Aye, there’s the rub. Time to drain that swamp.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
FremontLifer, atleast do you have a vision? I did not expect you to name or start a business that will replace NUMMI. So not just you FremontLifer, anybody who believes in No to A’s, what vision do you hve for that nummiY site. Its easy to say no. My 2 yr old son says no to everything. To prove you guys are different from my son, you have to have a viable vision. Your comments on city council are vague. True they maybe bad, but Idont see any good replacements either.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Andy, the way you build a “vision” on a project like this, and the only way to build a “viable” vision for a project like this – is through a thorough, public participatory process. Period.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I disagree. I have to say people dont always know what is good. That’s why city planning is a specialized study. People chose their leaders to make decisions for them. You dont like the decisions, change the leaders next time around. But allowing people to make a judgement on every single issue isnt always ideal.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Bring it to the ballet, watch it pass and then let’s play ball! And perhaps get that downtown we all want.
GO A’s!
January 9th, 2010 at 5:57 am
Andy; I have to agree with you, that “people don’t always know what is good” – and, that “city planning is a specialized study.”
That’s exactly why it’s best to rely on “learned professionals” to honestly help analyze complex projects through a transparent public process – to insure that the publics interest is not subservient to private interests. CEQA is somewhat intended to do this – to inform the public and elected officials so that they can make informed decisions.
However, there are a lot of games that go on out there within the system. For example; when you state that “People chose their leaders to make decisions for them” – is that what’s going on here? Fred’s report states: “it is important to note…(this has) not been considered nor endorsed by the City Council.” Is staff running Fremont on behalf of those elected “leaders” – or simply being opportunistic on behalf of themselves and MLB?
A while back, Gus challenged whether a City Manager could in fact go off in a direction of his own like this without Council having directed him. Well it sure as heck looks like that is exactly what he’s done.
You also state that “allowing people to make a judgement on every single issue isn’t always ideal”: does a project of this size that openly calls for the public to pay for the cost of the land, and ALL infrastructure qualify as a project that you should be “ALLOWING people to make a judgement on”?
Finally, I would argue that in fact the best planners are using a public process know as the “Charrette” process for determining the “best” project – while building public consensus at the same time.
The charrette process actually works on behalf of both the publics interest and for the private developers interest in that it creates more “certainty in the process” by finding out what the public is going to go along with up front – before the developer has to pay for the costly entitlements process (i.e., (permitting & EIR).
Remember WS – how successful was that by not “allowing people” to make judgement?.
I know first hand that the charrette approach was recommended to top staff, by staff, and rejected outright – at the cost of the project (to this date).
January 9th, 2010 at 6:12 am
And again, at least this time we get to hear what is being recommended by staff and/or endorsed by Council BEFORE the next election (something not allowed before the last election).
So this time yes, if “You dont like the decisions, change the leaders next time around”!
Bingo.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:17 am
Let’s VOTE!
January 9th, 2010 at 6:37 am
I’ll support the three candidates who agree to DUMP DIAZ!
And here’s another campaign slogan: REMEMBER WARM SPRINGS!
January 9th, 2010 at 6:39 am
Yours truly – the MOB!
January 9th, 2010 at 7:53 am
If the City plans, as Fred Diaz states, to make the proposed ballpark site into a redevelopment zone, the City General Fund will never (or at least not in our lifetimes) get any property tax revenue from the new ballpark. Instead, the General Fund (the fund that pays for road maintenance and safety services) will be drained to maintain the infrastructure for the new park.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I hear a lot of complaning about our city leaders, Mayor and Council. That they do not reflect the will of the people.
Lets put the blame where it belongs, to the voters of Fremont who elected them, if you think you made a mistake, RECALL them ALL.
Lets start with a new slate of council members and Mayor. Lets find council members who represent the people of Fremont, not the present group.
That will be one way of voting on the Stadium.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Even when the economy was booming, fremont struggled to get any decent retail or restaurants. With this economy, good luck if burger king sets up shop here.
Without a big catalyst like the stadium fremont will the vallejo way. Without the stadium fremont can only attract fast food joints, milk tea stalls, lion city, cheap curry places.
Changing the mayor, council doesnt change this ground reality.
January 9th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Agree, C-guy; recall them all!
Especialy since the voters where withheld the information about the WS alternative site until after the election – so as to not lose votes for the Mayor. Thanks to nun other than City Manager/Redevelopment Executive Director FRED DIAZ!
January 9th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I can’t get over some of the uninformed comments here. For example, Andy, please note: Fremont has four – count ‘em – 4 Burger Kings. And, if you don’t know about the many good restaurants in Fremont, you need to get out more.
Heck, Matt did a column a few months ago where people listed their favorite restaurants in the comments section. There are plenty for a city of this size. Of course, I’d welcome more good ones, but with a population of 200,000 Fremont can only support a finite number.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Anon, Box, everybody – I’m sorry! I know how things used to work, I know how things are swupposed to work, and I believed they worked that way now. I was wrong!
This effort should have been developed in public, after a council vote authorizing it, not sprung on the citizens 72 hours before a final decision with a report that has been festering for months. There is so much wrong with this process that I cannot begin to ennumerate the issues. It is just wrong.
And the council had to know about it. With two of them up for election in November and a third running for Assembly, they show no political sense at all. Have they developed amnesia over the last year? Don’t they realize the uproar this will bring and how it will cloud every other issue in the election? What are they thinking? Arethey thinking at all?
Of course the NUMMI area will have to be in a redevelopment district if we ever expect to deal with the issues, but that means we need to clear and clean the site to make it available for other uses, not to give a gift of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to rich people to build a facility where rich men play a child’s game for huge amounts of money. Good land in Fremont sells for $2 million + an acre. Charlotte is right, the tax increment from improvements on that property will not accrue to the general fund for years and the cost to service it will be bourne by all the rest of us.
Box, my reason for wanting to see real data from independent sources is to be able to say we are right. I know you and I, and others, have revieweed the stadium idea from all aspects and we probably know as much about it as the A’s do, but all of these knee jerk supporters need to have facts pushed into their faces.
I spent a lot of my life and a lot of my energy on the city of Fremont. I wanted to build and maintain the kind of a city where people would want to live, to raise their children and to build their lives. Over the 50+ years of our life as a city, we have succeeded, beyond the wildest dreams of our founders. People now come from around the world to Fremont because it is safe, clean, has good schools, and provides all amenities a family needs. We don’t have much of a night life, but every time, every time, someone brings some fancy idea for a entertainment venue of some kind, it turns into a disaster, sooner or later. People open nice restaurants and we don’t go to them, and they close. We are what we are – a city built for families. We ought to be proud of that. Cities around this country, bigger and smaller than us, envy us. If we are going to change that, it ought to happen only after a lot of public input. Not 72 hours.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Eyesbright, there are about 2-3 restaurants in Fremont that would legitimately impress most metro visitors. I wouldn’t even consider bringing a business client to eat in Fremont. If you think we have an acceptable level of quality food and commerce for a city this size, then so be it – but that position shows that you don’t do much outside of the city boundaries.
Andy wrote: “Without a big catalyst like the stadium fremont will the vallejo way”
This is the statement of the year for Fremont. If any council hopeful can’t present a catalyst for development that is equal in magnitude to a stadium by the election season, they might as well shutter their campaign prospects for 2010. In fact, in my estimation, this single proposal essentially ends Vinni
January 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
My post was clipped:
..In fact, in my estimation, this single proposal essentially ends Vinnie Bacons prospect for 2010, so much so that you have to wonder if the current council planned it that way.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
OK, Andy, how about this –
Building a stadium could generate some income 82 or 83 times per year (athough not enough to offset the costs). If the proper decisions are made, Fremont and the Bay Area could experience economic benefits 365 times a year.
Silicon Valley is full of smart people. How does it makes sense to destroy a functional plant to build a stadium? By that logic, we should knock down the Coliseum and build a factory.
Why not go with something truly innovative and create a twenty-first century plant to manufacture high-speed rail cars, wind turbines, solar energy cells and other green technology, and include top notch R&D staff to explore other technologies that advance the Bay Area in a much needed industry that can help save our environment for future generations? Instead of seeking immediate gratification, we need to take a very serious look at the long term economic and environmental opportunities that this transition presents.
Alternatively, Fremont should be looking for another automobile company; i.e., hybrid, or electric. There are skilled workers already in the area – they just need a forward-thinking company to commit and a City Planning Department that is receptive. Wish we had one.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Q: Why do the Oakland A’s want to move to Fremont?
A: The A’s always wants to move to San Jose for the south bay fan base and a good team name. But Santa Clara county is Giants territory. So they chose Fremont. Now MLB will allow the A’s talk to San Jose because the territory right will be decided by 30 MLB team owners, not the Giants.
Q: Is Fremont the best location for both south bay and east bay fans?
A: By moving to San Jose, the A’s expect to gain more south bay fans in the expense of loosing east bay fan base. It also comes with a great city name. Fremont is pretty far from many east bay fans. Also many south bay fans still consider Fremont as easy bay location with a long drive. The Fremont location will lose lots of east bay fans and only draw some south bay fans. The Giants know this, so they are ok to see their competitor moving to an inferior location in Fremont.
Q: What will happen to the traffic on 880/680, Auto Mall, Osgood, Fremont, Grimmer, Warm Springs and Mission Blvd?
A: The 880/680 corridor is the bottleneck between south bay and east bay. The traffic in this area is already very congested and over-capacity during weekday late afternoon commute hours. It’s always bumper-to-bumper and showing red in Google traffic map. With 32000+ more fans and 10,000+ more cars, your commute time will easily be extended substantially during game days (50% of days from April to September/October). Traffic is the major concern to many residents, but maybe just a nuisance to business developers and politicians, sigh;-(
Q: Is a stadium the best use of land around the planned Warm Springs BART station?
A: This location will be very similar to the current Oakand Colesium with free way access, lots of parking lots and a BART station. The traffic will be jammed during game days, and no one will be there in non-game days. This is certainly not the best transient-oridented development.
Q: Will the stadium bring extra job and tax revnue to Fremont?
A: Most of the jobs will be temporary and seasonal. Some people think a stadium will bring more business, but the bad traffic will also scare away many potential business and high-tech companies.
Q: Wouldn’t a baseball stadium in Fremont be great?
A: Only if it’s properly planned. The A’s mention several times about their “downtown ballpark plan” and “one stadium does not make it downtown”. Baseball stadiums do best in an active, urban setting, surrounded by supporting/complementing businesses. They work best with existing downtown infrastructure. You don’t build a stadium and suddenly become a “downtown”. Do the the A’s want to take the risk? Do the residents of Fremont want to take the risk?
Q: Does Fremont have the resource and infrastructure to handles the extra activities from an MLB stadium?
A: Fremont does not have the big city infrastructures (downtown, budget, government, police, resource, transportation, etc.) to manage the extra activities from an MLB stadium. The stadium would be a good fit for big cities like San Jose, San Francisco, or Oakland. Fremont still does not have a decent downtown, mall, or theater. How do we expect the current city government can plan an MLB stadium properly? Besides, many people still don’t know Fremont does not have a full-time mayor or city council. It’s still a small city government structure, lack of check and balance system in our local government.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Right on lifer; you are a perfect example of the benefits of a public process – you learn about great ideas that just maybe you had not thought about yet!
It reminds me of the old saying that there is basically three types of knowledge: what you know, what you don’t know, and – what you don’t know that you don’t know!
January 9th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
And BTW: thank you Gus for caring.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
The Silicon Valley has no patent on intelligent people. There are technology centers around the county pulling a major brain drain on what we think is exclusive to our region. One common feature of all these regions — Raleigh, NC, Austin, TX, Aurora-Illinois tech corridor, Virginia, etc — is cities dedicated to modern development with attractions aimed at young professionals.
We have 50 places to eat yogurt with toppings.
Credit should be given to those who made Fremont into a safe and comfortable city with good schools. But, it’s going to take more than that to attract high earning families to Fremont from here on out. There has to be stuff to do, outdoor commerce centers, museums, culture and perhaps a sports team.
As much as I like Lifer’s idea of tooling NUMMI to manufacture feel good technologies with some space left over for an R&D utopia, one must ask: Why in the hell would they chose Fremont when there are so many better (and cheeper) places to do so.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
And, to those Warm Springs residents living in their ho-hom suburban stucco boxes who oppose a NUMMI stadium as an effort to preserve property values, take a look at what 500K buys you in Austin, TX.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2004-Val-Verde_Austin_TX_78732_1114394856
And, did you catch those school ratings? 9′s and 10′s across the board. Now, without some miracle intervention by the ghosts of Bay Area innovation, compared to Fremont, which city’s property values do you see going up, and which city do you down in the next 5 years?
Hint, it’s the one with unprecedented growth even through the recession. And Austin is not alone.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Thank you, Gus, for your post and your years of service.
Sumus quod sumus – ought to be the City of Fremont motto.
My thought for you today – illegitimi non carborundum.
Come November, we’ll get some shiny new representatives in place who actually represent the people and the people’s interests rather than their own.
Maybe they’ll find a way to void Diaz’ contract and send him back to Tracy. You don’t have to go home, Fred, but you can’t stay here.
And congrats, Vinnie, on having this “dead” issue back in the public arena. No more wondering what the big question of the election will be and, fortunately for you, you’re already on the right side of it. Take that ball and run with it.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Maybe Marty should take a look at Fremont property values and how they are faring compared to other areas of the country. Our home in Fremont’s Glenmoor Gardens, for example, has fared well during this economic downturn, losing very little in value compared to other areas, including the areas you mentioned, e.g. Austin, TX, etc. Our home’s value has already been rising steadily again. That’s because homes in most areas of Fremont are in high demand. Fremont has high income wage earners who want to live here.
Wages in Austin, TX are far lower than in Fremont, CA. That’s why housing prices there are lower. I have friends in Austin, TX. They say, “it’s a nice place if only it weren’t in Texas.”
Marty seems to hate Fremont; perhaps he’d be happier in Austin.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Let’s not forget that Texas is a notorious right-to-work state, an oxymoron which means that it’s non-union. The progressive Bay Area is historically pro-union, which is reflected in the wages for both union and non-union jobs and our standard of living in general.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Eyesbight, I have spent a good portion of my life savings on a nice big house in Fremont, and I agree that many Fremont neighborhoods have lost less value than others in the region and the greater state. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that beyond this ballpark development, there are few items in the pipeline aimed at maintaining (at the least) interest in the city, and therefore those property values.
Without an influx of young professionals, the Bay Area will die and other regions win. This reality presents itself as an even larger imperative as the economy recovers and employers decide on which markets offer the best environment to set up shop. As it stands, Fremont is barely on the Bay Area short-list. How do you expect it to be on a national list?
Perhaps this presents an opportunity for Bacon and Shah to come up with something big. If they don’t the pro-A’s-council-incumbent “complex” will likely win in November.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I work in the high tech industry. I don’t know one single geek who cares about sports. Many of my co-workers fit the “young professionals” category that Marty wants to attract. Without exception, none of them, not even one, cares anything whatsoever about professional sports. Lack of a professional sports stadium is not even a consideration for the typical high tech company when looking to locate in a city. In fact, as NUMMI realized, a sports stadium is often a hindrance to other industries and a reason to look elsewhere to build.
January 9th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Marty, I didn’t see any major professional sports team in Austin.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Once again, this will be more Fremont taxpayer money wasted down a fat rat hole. Wasserman,and Diaz do not have a clue what Fremont residents need or want.
There is far too much opposition to a stadium in Fremont’s Warm Springs Area. This opposition will outlast the A’s, Wasserman, Diaz and prostadium Council Members. Years of massive CEQA and legal challenges from businesses such as Home Depot, WalMart, Frys, enviromental groups, state regulators, and community groups will put an end to any stadium near a residential community, daycare and elementary school.
The Big Guns are ready for a Fight
January 9th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Eyesbright, you may be right. If there is one place on this planet where EEs and researchers would be content with yogurt with mochi on top as their primary weekend event, then Fremont is the place.
NoAsWS, Austin does in fact have no pro sports team. But their handle on art, music, food and American culture competes with San Francisco. But again, sports is not my point.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
“The progressive Bay Area is historically pro-union, which is reflected in the wages for both union and non-union jobs and our standard of living in general.”
I’m not sure if this is sarcasm, but if you consider a high standard as living as two income households grinding to meet an average home price to income ratio of 6-7 then yes, the Bay Area has that pegged. Now the question is, how does Fremont maintain that exorbitant price-income ratio?
January 9th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
To all you so called “anti-stadium thinkers” just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water what say you …I still think this thing is still deader than a crow but still the “apocalyptic consequences” of major league baseball coming to Fremont is alive and still has a pulse. Time for you all you “anti-stadium thinkers” to defend all of those acres and acres of weeds. Is this going to be another cross town traffic issue? Is a mob going to to assemble on Mission and go to City Hall to Tar and feather Bud Selig? I’m sure you will have a million or even a billion reasons why this is a bad idea. You will once again try to prove that Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, Denver, and Washington, D.C. Cincinnati, St. Louis, Seattle got it wrong and that you are protecting Fremont from the big bad Lew Wolf. Fremont is by all accounts a place where people escape from to get a dose of culture. Bringing the Ass to Fremont is a good first step .
January 9th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The “Ass” is already in Fremont – he’ll be up on the dias on Tuesday night, no doubt.
January 9th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Eyesbright you said “I work in the high tech industry. I don’t know one single geek who cares about sports. Many of my co-workers fit the “young professionals” category that Marty wants to attract. ”
I am sure there are geeks who dont care about sports. But what do they think about fremont as a place to live ?
I know a bunch of people who will not step into fremont or east bay in general. But we can change that if we change the image of the city. A safe city with a stadium + nice retail + entertainment is a major selling point.
If anybody has an honest alternative to a stadium that can change the image of the city, bring it forward. If you bring forward a viable alternative, I bet you will deplete half of the pro As gang.
Bad times call for bold decisions.
January 9th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
I would call Diaz, Wasserman and Susan Chan STUPID but it would give stupid people a bad name to be associated with these idiots. How is it moving the A’s 800 yards down Grimmer Blvd. from where the Warm Springs A’s stadium was proposed last year and caused a huge community uproar is now fine to consider with our City leadership?
January 9th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Bad times do not call for bad, hasty, desperate decisions. Bad times are exactly when we have to be very careful about what we commit our City to become.
A stadium will not give us a safe city. Public safety is paid out of the General Fund. The City proposes to develop this site as a Redevelopment Area – Redevelopment Funds. As Gus noted above, “the tax increment from improvements on that property will not accrue to the general fund for years and the cost to service it will be bourne by all the rest of us.” Taxes from the Redevelopment District would accrue to the Redevelopment Fund and would not be available for ongoing operations like police and fire. Where will the cost of the police and fire services required by a stadium come from?
At any given time, Fremont PD has maybe eight officers actually on patrol. For any given home game, the Oakland PD details approximately twenty officers for traffic and crowd control. Our PD is already stretched thin; they can’t even respond to burglar alarms. We’ve got rolling brown-outs of our fire stations. Where are the additional officers going to come from if there’s no money in the General Fund?
An honest alternative to a stadium, one with long term economic and environmental opportunities, will present itself if we, as a City, are open to it. The City chased Tesla off with a big stick, and our Planning Department is busy every day making life as difficult as possible for a lot of businesses who would like to come to town. All except the A’s, of course.
We never hear about all of the business opportunities that are discouraged, frustrated and generally starved out of town; perhaps if we had actual investigative local reporting we would, but if you’ve ever talked to some of the business owners who have tried to come here, it would really open your eyes about what is going on at City Hall.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:27 am
I know many small businesses who were frustrated working with Fremont. Some gave up, while others went elsewhere and succeeded in other cities. It has been my experience dealing with surveryors, architects, and other construction related professionals who acknowledged the same level of frustration, but kept a low profile since they are at the mercy of the city. The bias in favor of As is clear. Fremont citizens clearly will subsidize the A’s in the long-run, except those benefit from this project, who will continue to wave inaccurate rhetoric on jobs, tax revenue, etc.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Item 4 on page 3.4 of the MLB/A’s Fremont Site Study:
“There are significant opportunities for flexible, phased, complementary private real estate development in the short-term and long-term. The proposed ballpark site on the northern parcel of the NUMMI site provides opportunities for destination-oriented real estate development, and would represent the first phase of redevelopment of the overall NUMMI site.”
PRIVATE real estate development. That pretty much sums up why so much interest in that specific location out of the entire 370 acre site.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Andy,
Instead of a Baseball Stadium, How about a Performing Arts Center that would seat 2000.
The San Jose Center for the Performing Arts Has Ballet, Broadway Plays, Musicals.
Just in the last few months I have seen two Ballets, one play, and three musicals including the Bay Area’s best version of the Nutcracker.
So, How about a Performing Arts Center?
January 10th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Gus – with all due respect for your contributions to the city, I’m gonna call you out on this one –
When you say “…my reason for wanting to see real data from independent sources is to be able to say we are right..”
You have with your statment legitimized the sources of the proposed EIR – the same folks which are seemingly running interference on the agendizing of these meetings – but you’ll trust that their EIR would be “inedpendent” e.g., not subject to the influences of Wasserman/Diaz hysteria ???????
I AM SHOCKED, GUS – - – there have indeed been analysis of this very kind of optimism in the municipal EIR’s authored in support of these things (and the media support of the anecdotal hype).
January 10th, 2010 at 10:54 am
CaliforniaGuy,
a Performing Arts Center can be a side attraction and cannot be the main draw. A Performing arts center maybe near the stadium or in centerville is probably ok. But make no mistake no out of towners will patronise your arts center. It has to be the people of fremont. I am telling you its not easy to come up with alternatives to the stadium.
Imagine you are the city manager. Status quo is not acceptable. You have the stadium option. Now what else you got? This is for everybody.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Andy, A Baseball stadium does not work for Fremont, for it to work it needs to be close to city center, since we have no downtown or city center it will not work.
Pacbell or AT&T park works because it fills all the surrounding resturants and bars, we have very little of either.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:12 am
So Andy, basically you are saying that “DICTATORSHIP” – “This is for everybody.” And you might qualify as one yourself with how fast you can issue an edict on other peoples ideas; while paying no mind to the offenses that are transpiring in the name of public process.
You really don’t have any idea how unethical this whole sorry process of developing an A’s PROPOSAL (aka “not a proposal”) has been, do you?
January 10th, 2010 at 11:23 am
You are correct for once eggman…Charlie-O the Mule was the mascot used by the Kansas City Athletics and Oakland A’s from 1963 to 1976. So when are the fringe mob anti stadium folks going to get together and misbehave publicly?
January 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Fried calamari at 5:00 PM on Tuesday anyone?
January 10th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Oh, and Andy, could you bring a copy of the new A’s PROPOSAL with you to the Council meeting at 5:00 PM on Tuesday – since we can’t actually see the attachments in the staff report – and therefore can not consider this PLAN that you state is “not easy to come up with alternatives” for – presumably because it’s so great!
Talk about the “blind leading the blind”!!!
January 10th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
blah blah blah..
I am still waiting for a viable alternate vision for fremont..
January 10th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Andy’s idea of a “vision” is dropping a nice warm load anywhere a developer wants it.
That mentality has resulted – in large measure – with the “result” we each can see.
Andy wants something better. . . .
The “something better” is (IMHO) that we prevent these “managers” from making any more decisions just as quickly as we can . . . . and then maybe we can ferret out a viable vision and plan.
First things first – - let’s cease with the blind leading the blind towards that which you call – “a vision”.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I’ve been giving some thought, Andy, to your challenge for commenters to come up with businesses that will come to Fremont. It occurs to me that this is really an unfair question. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of local individuals to go out and round up prospective businesses to relocate to Fremont. That’s why we pay for an Economic Development Department. The City has gone to pains to insure that there is no seat at the table for individuals who would want to be involved in that process. When is the last time you heard of an regular, individual citizen brokering a deal between a large company and the City? It doesn’t happen, as you probably know.
I’ve heard people say that the NUMMI closure is Fremont’s 9-11, and I think that there could be some basis in that. The NUMMI closure will be an extremely hard hit for our City and the area in general. It got me to thinking about the other parallels between a large national disaster like 9-11 and a smaller, local disaster like the NUMMI closure.
In both instances, the politicians in charge are depending on the generation of fear in the population to give them cover to accomplish ends which the public, in less stressful times, would never give consent to.
In the case of 9-11, fear was used to get us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have sapped the economic strength of our country and caused untold suffering to individuals on both sides of the conflict. We have spent enough on these wars (in the neighborhood of $950 billion) to have ameliorated any number of serious social problems here in the US. They told us there were WMD – there weren’t. They told us “we don’t torture” – we do. They told us there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda – there weren’t. We were told that the war would be easy and we’d be welcomed as liberators. We were told that Iraq’s oil revenues would go to the Iraqis so they could re-build their country. You know the lies.
In the case of the NUMMI closure, fear is being used to get us into a stadium development which will sap the economic strength of our City for decades to come. What City services, programs, and facilities will be unfunded because the money will go to the purchase and clean-up of the stadium site? What future service cuts be made to pay for the road maintenance and public safety needs of the stadium? What future tax increases will be required to service the needs of the beast? But we are told that we have to take this deal because there’s no alternative. Do it now or the sky will fall. Be afraid that there will never be another business that wants to come here. Be afraid that we will never have any jobs here. Be afraid.
The next time you hear the City tell you that we have to have a stadium because NUMMI is closing, consider this. Those of us who are opposed to the stadium are not opposed to development. We are against dumb development.
If the City is going to pay for the purchase and clean-up of land in order to allow a developer to locate in Fremont, why would we choose a developer who does business less than 100 days a year? If we truly want to invest our public dollars in purchasing and cleaning up this land for a developer, why do we not make that fact known to the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley? Both Federal and private money is streaming in to green industries of all types, and most of them operate five days a week, all year ’round, not just on game days during baseball season.
We’ve all seen what can happen when politicians use fear to drive people like cattle into decisions that are not in their long-term best interests. We all know that they are not above lying to all of us to get what they want. Don’t let them fool you again.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Wow, really well put lifer; you also box!
January 10th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Wondering:
1. How much effort did the city council put in trying to save NUMMI, compared with their effort to put a stadium there?
2. And how much effort did the city coucil put in trying to find a replacement for NUMMI? Which business would like to have a baseball stadium right next to it?
3. Does any of the council members live even close to the proposed site? Do Warm Springs and Weibels have any representative in the city council for their interests to be considered? Maybe south Fremont should consider seceding from the Fremont City, creating a new city or joining Milpitas.
4. NIMBY. Some people accuse local residents and businesses NIMBY. Nothing wrong with NIMBY. Protecting one’s own interest is a born right and foundation of the country. Many people accusing others NIMBY live nowhere near the site, or not even in Fremont. For people living in south Fremont, the whole Fremont is their backyard. The stadium will affect the entire Fremont and far beyond, not just south end of it.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
RE Box # 64 above.
I really believe the EIR process provides the data needed to evaluate a project. The EIR is prepared by an independent consultant, selected by the city and paid for by the applicant. The city controls the consultant, not the applicant. The end result comprises all the data and the back up to that data with which the council, or the public, can evaluate the project. I have seen projects killed by the EIR process.
One wonders about the consultants. Well, they need to be independent so they can continue in business. If their documents don’t hold up in court, they get off the approved consultant lists for every city and every agency. If they get a reputation for bias, councils get attacked when they are selected. There are minor variations between consultants, but no extremes.
And, once you have the document in your hands, you can attack or challenge the methodology or the conclusions or force additional studies. EIRs give us tools to use.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I agree with Andy, most of these posts are negative “attacks” with words to inspire fear for change. I assume most posts are by those that enjoy the city with no downtown, no action, no future for the younger generations. A stadium will inspire other businesses to town (restaurants, shops, malls, theatre, etc.) therefore creating more jobs, more tax revenue and a chance to put the City name with a MLB team! When asked for other ideas, you say “it’s not our job to think of ideas”… yet you do find it your job to use this forum to complain constantly. Go A’s in Fremont! It’ time for the younger generations that have come to Fremont, with young families that seek change such as this to chime in. It will happen, we will organize this time!
January 10th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I will group the A’s naysayers in the following groups:
1. Those who personally dislike the current mayor and his council appointees and will virulently oppose anything they take a stand on
2. True NIMBYists who dislike any development at all in fremont.
3. People who are concerned about increased crime due to the stadium
4. People who think the stadium will be drain on the city resources
We can have a healthy discussion with only Group3 and 4. If Groups1 and 2 turn out to be a majority in fremont, god save fremont !
January 10th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Well said Andy, I do think that those in group 1 & 2 will dislike any City Council and simply enjoy complaining about government in general. They are also the type that when asked to get involved in the community to help are the first to turn away. It’s easy to sit behind a computer and criticize, it’s even harder to organize your neighbors to help the youth, elderly, clean up the streets, participate in a City council meeting and push for change.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Calamari… who he?
January 10th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
DontKnow guy, atleast you are being honest to your alias name.
< 1. How much effort did the city council put in trying to save NUMMI, compared with their effort to put a stadium there?
Are you kidding me? Car manufacturing plant in bay area? Its hard enough to compete with foreign carmakers who make their cars cheap. To top that, you want a car manufacturer to do it in perhaps the costliest place in the country. Car plants even in cheaper towns in midwest are shutting down, and you wonder if we could saved NUMMI. Even for eletric cars, you can have the car designs made here, technilogy patente here, maybe the tricky eletronic bits made here. But the plant has to be in a cheaper place somewhere in midwest or in mexico or elsewhere to make a profit. This is the sad reality of global economy.
< 3. Does any of the council members live even close to the proposed site? Do Warm Springs and Weibels have any representative in the city council for their interests to be considered? Maybe south Fremont should consider seceding from the Fremont City, creating a new city or joining Milpitas.
This is why I said earlier you just cannot let people take every single decision. Because they just dont know or can be brain washed easily. Someone must have told you having a stadium will turn that area into west oakland. We can debate if there can be a possibility of increased crime, but I can assure you it will not turn into west oakland. Crime in a city is commited by people who live there. Think and compare palo alto and east palo alto.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Bbox, I was tempted to put you in group1. Group2 is for people like Vinnie who I think are atleast sincere in their misguided beliefs.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
FYI
Green Bay, WI inspite of being an industrial town ( population ~100k) and having a sports team is not crime ridden. There are some honest people who have been brainwashed into thinking that having a stadium means thousands of drunk weird out of towners who will pillage your homes, steal your cars. I bet most of these guys have never been to a ball game before and are just scared of the unknown
January 10th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
There are successful ballparks. There are fail ones too. The image of Oakland Coliseum also makes people worried.
Is the Fremont location better than Oakland Coliseum to handle the extra traffic? Does Fremont have more resource than Oakland to handle the extra activities and crime? Does Fremont have big enough budget to maintain the infrastructure to support a stadium?
Does Fremont really need a stadium? Can Fremont support a stadium? How do the proponents guarantee the rosy projection? Will it turn into another Oakland Coliseum? (also wondering why the A’s cannot improve the current Coliseum and turn it into their dream project.)
The “private real estate developers” sure will make lots of money from the stadium project. It’s the local residents and taxpayers who will suffer the damage from a poorly planned stadium. The risk is too high for some uncertain return. Do the residents of Fremont want to take the risk?
January 11th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Oakland has crime which is completely unrelated with the stadium.
< The “private real estate developers” sure will make lots of money from the stadium project. It’s the local residents and taxpayers who will suffer the damage from a poorly planned stadium. The risk is too high for some uncertain return. Do the residents of Fremont want to take the risk?
Why would citizens suffer. What if the costs are taken care of by the As. Stadium maintenance, cops, etc which is what it seems from the "Excerpts" posted by Matt. I think it will also be good news for property values in WS.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:51 am
I’ll toss this question into the pond.
If a ballpark was built on the north end in the area recommended by city staff, would businesses, and I don’t mean “destination-oriented” businesses, be attracted to the NUMMI property? Businesses that produce a product for commercial sale.
Request: Please don’t build more high-density, transit-oriented residential development there. We need jobs, full-time, year-round jobs for those that already live in the Tri-city area.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:56 am
I looked at the site location map. Wasserman and Diaz want to put the stadium on top of Nummi’s burrowing owl mitigation area! What a pair of dorks.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:03 am
If the A’s do in fact commit to Freemont, the process of building the stadium and moving in will take at least 5 years and By that time Al Davis will be probably be long gone. With the A’s in Freemont and Davis out of the way, the Raiders and the 49ers will then be able to build a new NFL stadium at the Coliseum site.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Any one got Mayor Wasserman’s and Fred Diaz’s home addresses? I would like to prepare site maps for the Fremont City council to consider as two alternate locations for the A’s stadium.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:07 am
As far as businesses being attracted by the prospect of being close to a ballpark, that was definitely not true of Costco, Kohls, Lowes, Catellus, or NUMMI – they all knew that the gridlock on game days would cut off their customer’s access to their stores.
I haven’t been to the Coliseum site in years. Tell me – are there businesses lining up to open near that stadium?
I’d also like to point out that many of us who are opposed to the stadium are not opposed to development. We’re opposed to dumb development. We know that Fremont deserves better. Better than a business that only operates on about 100 days during baseball season. Better than minimum-wage, seasonal, unskilled jobs. Better than increased taxes to pay for increased infrastructure maintenance and public safety. Do you seriously think that the A’s are going to pay for the public safety services required by a stadium? They didn’t become successful by paying for stuff – they stay successful by getting dopes like us to pay for the stuff they need.
If you think that the current City administration isn’t falling all over itself to pay for stuff that the stadium requires, ask yourself – how much has this conceptual plan cost? The City has been working on this (in super-secret mode) since last summer. What City services went un-funded because the money went to woo the A’s?
January 11th, 2010 at 10:32 am
The anti-stadium folks who are proponents of a certain type of development have 10 months to articulate that position.
I lieu of that, I think Fremont voters are going to go with something over nothing in November.
BTW, it’s great to have a variety of views finally represented on this forum, for it has (for the most part) been a groupthink forum for so long on this issue.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Omited a mention that not only will traffic issues impact businesses on the sales end of the process, gridlock isn’t good for deliveries on the intake end either. Will Lam Research and Solyndra find this acceptable?
January 11th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Given that the City has a terminal case of tunnel vision, I’m quite sure that they’ll double down on their efforts to discourage any other contenders for development in this area until after the election. A proposal this bad can’t stand any competition. Fortunately, the incumbents for Council re-election can’t either.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:15 am
A city wide vote for the stadium will fail by a huge margin. It is the times of our economy and this will flat out cost the Fremont taxpayers more in taxes. Once again Wasserman and Diaz will lose this vote but not before they continue to waste valuble city resources for their personal dream.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Gus M – Re Post #76
Gus M says – “I really believe the EIR process provides the data needed to evaluate a project. The EIR is prepared by an independent consultant, selected by the city and paid for by the applicant.”
“Economic impact studies are commonly performed by consultants or large consulting firms. 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”.
http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_103.pdf
January 11th, 2010 at 11:50 am
It’s just common sense – you pay the piper and you call the tune.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Let’s vote!!! Fremont voters overwhelmingly favor bringing A’s baseball to our town!
January 11th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
First page, first paragraph of the A’s Plan Executive Summary states:
“The NUMMI site is a strong candidate for designation as a “Priority Development Area” by the Association of Bay Area Governments, increasing Fremont’s ability to obtain Federal, State, and regional funding for development projects. This competitive advantage should not be overlooked.”
It’s interesting to note that yes, the City Council authorized staff to submit applications for this site (and a couple of others) to become a “priority development site” under ABAG’s “Focus” program (google it if you don’t believe me). However, that program is all about getting infil HOUSING around transit nodes.
Furthermore, just like after getting the RDA Centerville “Unified” site qualified – City Manager Fred Diaz went out and fostered an all commercial plan (unilaterally) with the Developer – Blake Hunt – in direct contradition to how the site had just been qualified under the Focus Application (FYI: it took some time, but eventually he had to accept some housing on the site – but he fought staff hard to avoid it).
Now Fred’s playing the same shell game with the NUMMI site (of course, ask anyone honest and willing to speak on staff and they will tell you that not only does the guy have a hair-trigger temper and a HUGH ego, he has attention deficit disorder – A.D.D. – SERIOUSLY).
In fact, the Warm Springs BART station received special status when MTC & ABAG was setting target housing thresholds for BART stations – because of NUMMI’s opposition to Housing. In fact, it was the only BART station in the entire system that did not receive a housing target. So, perhaps the regional authorities should rethink that assumption an apply the “Focus” program goals after all!
Finnaly, isn’t it interesting how the attachment material on Fred’s staff report disapeared over the weekend, only to re-appear on Monday – in time to still be available to the public for 72 hours – just not over the weekend.
I sincerely hope that there are other authorities out there that are watching what is going on here (and listening to communications)- because no matter if you want the A’s in Fremont or not, this is starting to smell really bad:
(1) Misuse of public funds.
(2) Lack of public process.
(3) Obfuscation of both above; including not acting in good faith to keep NUMMI; and re-negociating the City Managers Contract without public knowlegde of their pending A’s PLAN PROPOSAL.
Please note: the three points above are not “CONCEPTUAL”!
January 11th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Oh and by the way: Last winter/spring of 09′ (after the flurry of blogging that transpired on this site) I thought it was odd that the City Manager’s Office had decided to take over direct management of the Information Technologies (IT) Devision withing the City.
Now it makes perfect sense! Any phone call or email has been under his (i.e., City Manager Fred Diaz’s) direct control.
Who say’s that Fremont isn’t fun place to work!
January 11th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Oh, and Matt, given the pattern of things so clearly evident now – don’t you think it would have been good to investigate that “band/graft” tip you got about the Niles Plaza ground breaking cerimony?
Where there’s smoke, there’s ….!
NOBODY HAS BEEN WATCHING THE RANCH. WAKE UP FREMONT!
January 11th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
See any paterns here:
We don’t know about the Warm Springs alternative site until after the last election – Wasserman wins.
We don’t know about the NUMMI alternative site until after the City Managers Contract is extended for five years – Diaz wins.
Both times YOU lose!
January 11th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Gus M – See Post #95 -
Andy re post # 82 –
Thanks for sorting out all of the various personalities andrew. I’m sure someone will find your advice valuable.
BTW – I’d love to know – — on what do you base your judgement of my sincerity or lack thereof ??
January 11th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Why is bringing job creation and tax revenue to a city that is about to lose it’s largest employer such a bad idea? Care to comment Kathy SUV McDonald? Not only is baseball the “National Pastime” people will spend money right here in Fremont passing time. The only thing the anti stadium yokels (Vinnie Bacon to name a few) can do is pass gas and wine on and on! Yes they will come to Fremont from all over the country and all over the world while. Rest assured Gus will still be in the basement eating spam. Who could doubt baseball would help Fremont take a dramatic and enjoyable turn for the better? Bring it on Anti Stadium thinkers! B in the box is still is thinking inside the box and the Fremont Lifer just ate “50 eggs”. What a joy it will be to spend a day at the old ballpark and maybe have a meal afterward or do some shopping perhaps or maybe just gas up your car at a gas station in our “former” boring bedroom community. This landmark of a stadium will be the a jewel of our community and a last help to turn our boring (but safe) bedroom community into tourist destination for the betterment of all ….is that such a bad idea?
January 11th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Squid; your comment #103 on Matt’s – and the fact that it is now difficult to link to this thread of comments on Matt’s “Fremont Makes New Pitch for the A’s” article is a sign of just how ugly this is going to get!
We can find the on-going active post – but we get a nice picture of none other that Mr. Oz himself.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Bbox, atleast Vinnie confesses hes a tree hugger. He wants us all to grow and hug trees too. While I strongly disagree with his view, I respect the fact that he is open about it. If you come out of the closet, you will graduate to Group2.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Folks, I have had a change of heart. Lets all follow Vinnie’s vision. Plant trees in centerville site, corn in State st/Capitol Ave, and lemons all over pacific common and nummi. No people, no traffic, no pollution, we will reduce the carbon footprint too !!!. I am sure we will get a federal grant for getting all the trees and corn and lemons planted. Vinnie will get us volunteers from berkeley to do the planting.
Lets take fremont to its old golden times of rolling hills and sweet smelling orchards and corn fields. Vote for the Nimbys!!
January 11th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Gus M – See Post #95 -
January 12th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Gus M –
See Post #95 -
Any thoughts ?
January 12th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
You have clearly been misinformed regarding Mr. Bacon’s position on local development. I will let him speak for himself on this issue, but his website is available at
http://www.bacon2010.com/index.html
Put in my own words – not anti-development, anti- dumb development.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I’ve read Bacon’s policy papers. Such a large void in specifics will be filled somehow, sometimes with hyperbole.
Also, Bacon has recused himself from this thread, which is one of the most popular TCB posts of all time discussing one of the most important issues facing Fremont. In place he chimes in within 25 minutes of Art’s post announcing his candidacy, promoting the illusion of facing the heat by answering questions on his website.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Although I am a sports fan, I am not for the stadium here.
The backroom handling by city officials sucks. Why can’t they just put the whole thing under sunshine since the start?
62M just for the link with BART? How much more public money will be spent on it?
January 12th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Andy,
I to can be called a tree hugger, yes I care about our environment.
It is people like you that think it is a big joke, that is one of the reasons we have gotten to the point we are at now.
Do you know what a tipping point is, well we are close to it.
I want a city councilmember that is concerned about OUR environment.
Marty, it is apparent that you hate Vinne, you have been dissing him for a long time.
Fortunately, you have no credibility. You are full of negative opinions
I support Vinnie Bacon, because He is more qualified then anyone on the council, except
Anu Natarajan, who I hope will run again
January 12th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Bill, Don’t confuse contrary opinions with negative opinions. I’ll let my contribution to this thread do the talking. You and Vinnie can let yours do the same.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
FremontLifer, so are you saying Vinnie is against reducing carbon footprint and is actually for development? If so, Vinnie goes back to Group1
Growing trees is the only viable alternative on that site and centerville. Think about it? You guys are going to oppose more homes. Upscale retail is ruled out. You can put a performing arts center which will die a slow death. What else ?
January 12th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
FremontBill, you are coming out and I appreciate it. So what do you think about my plan of growing trees in all the vacant land in fremont. I sure bet fremont will look better when those empty lots are lined up with trees.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
As I clearly stated, I do not speak for Vinnie Bacon. He is fully capable of speaking for himself. His e-mail and, I believe, his phone number are available at the site noted.
An evaluation of any proposed development must include a comparative analysis of benefits to the city. How would an investment in one project bring a superior return than an investment of those same dollars in any another business endeavor at the same site? This has not been done in the case of the stadium proposal.
City staff have unilaterally decided that it was worth spending in the neighborhood of $100,000 on a study requested by a developer who will not reimburse the City for that cost, and at a time when City services are going unfunded. This is irresponsible and unconscionable.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
You can please some of the people, some of the time. Call it as you see it and let the voters decide.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Fremont Lifer, so you want the city council to make a ballot measure for every dollar they spend? $100k for a city of fremont’s size is peanuts. Think about the empty land all over fremont. If we plant lemons there and sell it, I bet we make much more money. How many years have those lands been left fallow?
January 12th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
In case you haven’t checked it out in while….
http://newballpark.org/
Hey Gus, one of your most recent TCB posts is at the end of the Fremont article.
January 12th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Check out the Sac Bee article and the proposed downtown Oakland stadium map.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2450727.html
February 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Stop Screwing with us! Build the Damn stadium and move the A’s there!
It would be a great addition!!!