Comments on: Plan submitted for Pacific Commons Movie Theater

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:11:27 +0000

“Her protests against the stadium is based on the fact that it is fiscally irresponsible of city leaders to devote tax payers’ money to fund the A’s stadium.”

Where was Kathy from 2006-2008 when the stadium was slated for the Auto Mall site? Not in her backyard?

Try again, ‘Near Weibel’.

By: Anon101

Anon101 — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:01:41 +0000

Thanks for the link VOR, interesting read. Particularly the quote from Wolff:

“This idea we’re trying to discourage people from coming is a bunch of crap.”

Oakland should BOYCOTT this clown! Wolff has been dead set on moving out of Oakland since day one! To say otherwise is a “bunch of ….”!

By: VOR

VOR — Wed, 05 May 2010 13:48:44 +0000

Thanks Gus. It would be nice to turn it into another wildlife refuge area like Coyote Hills.

Oh, a quick note on things related to MLB and the A’s. Interesting to note the attendance at the A’s Monday night game, 8,874.

Read all about it……http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/04/MNNS1D9GQU.DTL

By: Gus Morrison

Gus Morrison — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:17:33 +0000

#25, VOR. First the Durham Road landfill is Waste Management, not Allied Waste. And, technically and legally, the diked salt ponds and marshlands are part of the bay. Currently, the salt ponds are being restored to the bay in a massive project and are now in the wildlife refuge.

By: Near Weibel

Near Weibel — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:06:33 +0000

Marty…

You need to lighten up. A movie theater will bring more consistent traffic to nearby resaturants than a ball park would have ever brought to Pacific Commons. Most A’s fans would drive to the park and bypass Pacific Commons altogether.

Why are you hasseling Kathy MacDonald on her property value? $1.2M is slightly about average for houses in the Weibel area. Her protests against the stadium is based on the fact that it is fiscally irresponsible of city leaders to devote tax payers’ money to fund the A’s stadium. It would be much better to pursue opportunities that will bring real jobs with real salaries to our community.

By: bbox231

bbox231 — Wed, 05 May 2010 03:35:25 +0000

“It’s getting even harder to decipher any semblance of meaning . . . . ”

marty -

By: VOR

VOR — Wed, 05 May 2010 01:17:49 +0000

It’s difficult to consider the former Allied Waste dump area as “waterfront” property. A quick Google Maps search shows it’s about three miles from the actual bay waterfront to the edge of the landfill. The area in between appears to be salt flats and marshland.

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 05 May 2010 00:54:46 +0000

Box, It’s getting even harder to decipher any semblance of meaning behind your responses to me, but if you are inferring that any of my statements are not supported by facts, I would be happy to provide you exact details regarding your candidates residential finances. I don’t think it’s appropriate here, but I will gladly email you.

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 05 May 2010 00:50:32 +0000

“what should be one of Fremont’s most prized possession – the San Francisco Bay waterfront.”

I’ve never thought of it like that. It’s not an EPA Superfund site. Former landfills are often converted to public places and residential. I’d much rather live in Fremont west that the old UC rail yard, which is an actual Superfund site turned suburb.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:38:01 +0000

Post #16 and #17 are good points. Probably not smart to build homes and schools there b/c eventually 10-20 years down the road, somebody will file a massive class action lawsuit against every responsible party including the City claiming they were made sick by contamination in the air, ground and/or water.