Fremont and Oakland still under consideration for A’s stadium
By Matt Artz
Friday, February 26th, 2010 at 3:54 pm in Uncategorized.
MLB officials spoke with Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz this week. They told him that no city had been eliminated and wanted to know more about land aquisition as well as on-site and off-site infrstructure improvements.
Diaz expects the city to meet with MLB officials within the next two weeks.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
February 26th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Very interesting!
February 26th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I hope that the meeting between Diaz and MLB is an open meeting otherwise a public records act request on the meeting will be in order.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Go Fred, close the deal already.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Does the scope of MLB’s authority and decision making extend beyond territorial rights issues ?
Why does MLB give a hoot about “land aquisition as well as on-site and off-site infrstructure improvements.”
Aren’t issues of how the city might choose to acquire land; what mechanism they speculate they might use to bequeath same to the developer; and what amenities the community will pay for and develope on behalf of the stadium; aren’t these matters for the city and developer to negotiate ?
Why would MLB be discussing these details with Diaz ?
February 27th, 2010 at 9:27 am
So the $100,000 report wasn’t specific enough? It didn’t clearly state the city’s proposal? I would think Mr. Diaz can’t offer up much more detail at this point since there are so many if’s involved. What’s the old saying about a bird in the hand?
February 27th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Yes – seems like MLB is desirous of more than “conceptual” details that we all have access to at this time.
Too bad citizens of Fremont have not (yet) been granted a comparable level of insight . . .
I’m guessing that Mr. Diaz won’t respond to MLB with with the same kind of response taxpayers got. You know, the “It’s premature to discuss anything outside the current concept document since evertying is . . . . . conceptual. . . . ” – response.
But again – why does MLB (seemingly) need to discuss matters relating to the development itself ???
Complete and total speculation on my part but how about this – but maybe MLB thinks they can help out one of their owners and secure a few early concessions from Fred even before the real negotiating begins (?)
You get him to nod and agree to a couple of minor points NOW while he’s surrounded by a dozen MLB “professionals” and staring into the bright lights of a conversation with Selig and MLB . . . . because Fred would be very comfortable in such a setting and would do a fine job of managing the dialogue . . . . and, who knows, maybe you get him to slip up on a couple of minor concessions that are then already in hand when the real negotiations begin.
February 27th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Keep in mind the MLB committee is on record, as reported in the SJ Mecury News, that they wouldn’t pick a city. That would be up to Lew Wolff.
So why this request?
Because it always pays to play one against the others when you have three vying for the prize.
February 27th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Correction. It was not the SJ Merc News. It was an Oakland Trib reporter. This is Martz blog post on it.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/05/more-on-mlb-committee/
And to be perfectly legit. It was the reporter’s conjecture not directly from the MLB committee.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Diaz’s January proposal was optimistic in how the NUMMI site would be acquired. I estimate that MLB wants more details. This seems entirely obvious to me, but those who seek conflict can draw their own conclusions.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
AH HAH HAH HAH !!!!!
LOL Marty !
You certainly do know how to make me laugh.
“Those who seek conflict…..”
Check out post #22 –
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/23/new-sports-facility-in-fremont-part-ii/#comments
“Hello pot this is kettle . . .”
February 27th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
“Box, if you we’re a baby seal, I’d club you”
Yeah, that was funny.
I still mean it.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
A good article about NUMMI from the SF Chron:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BUG81C763N.DTL
I wonder if Danny Glover even understands any of this sh*t?
February 28th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Very good article. This comment from Mayor Wasserman caught my eye.
“Wasserman said this zone could include a new Oakland Athletics stadium and a transit village near the BART station, without affecting the core Nummi site and its giant assembly lines.”
Who would be more unhappy with this arrangement, Lew Wolff having his stadium next to giant assembly lines or the corporation having the stadium next to their manufacturing facility?
Another old saying comes to mind. Having your cake and eating it too.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I continue to console myself by re-reading Ray Ratto’s article from last February when the last stadium plan died:
“Grandpa Lew has given up the ghost on a project that would have hosed the A’s financially, annoyed Fremont residents and made the Giants extraordinarily happy: three things that any right-thinking A’s fan would wish to avoid.”
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-21/sports/17189812_1_baseball-team-crazy-kids-dead/2
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
I worked for the A’s and know the inner workings. I also am a fan (16yrs) but would never want them in where live.
1. They only hire union workers and will not fire
their current employees so that means no new jobs
for Fremont.
2. We were only paid $7.75 and hour, no raises.
3. Atleast one stabbing or shooting every event due
gang members.
4. Oakland does not want to spend millions of
dollars on the stadium b/c it will take away
hundreds of millions away from roads, schools,
children, teachers, police and fire.