Part of the Bay Area News Group

NY baseball scribe says A’s will go to San Jose

By Matt Artz
Thursday, November 10th, 2011 at 9:29 pm in Uncategorized.

Veteran NY Daily News baseball writer Bill Madden, who wrote a very good book on George Steinbrenner last year, is reporting that A’s co-owner Lew Wolff has been given assurances from MLB Commissioner Bud Selig that he’ll be able to take the team to San Jose.

Read it here.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • West

    I did not get the San Leandro Argus this morning and suprisingly I did not miss it.
    What a way for a newspaper to promote online news, that is free with few ads.

  • Charlie C

    Another good reason to vote for Vinnie Bacon…NOT!

  • Charlie C

    Santa Clara & San Jose are getting it done. Thanks to the Fremont Citizens Network Fremont golden opportunity to become a *major league city* is gone . Remember this when you vote in 2112.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/06/SPV71M8NE7.DTL

  • bbox231

    San Jose may be getting it done, but, Oakland has been asked to re-up Lew’s lease for at least 5 more years. Here’s REALLY REALLY hoping that the Oakland folks are smart enough to jack the new lease rate through the roof since Lew’s obviously interested in leaving town. Get it while you can Mayor Quan!!!!!! If Lew had a choice, you wouldn’t have gotten the letter you did. Lew says he and his team can be of benefit to your community, let him show it by writing a nice little check for the next five years !!!!

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-athletics-coliseum-oakland-san-jose-20121221,0,3921535.story

  • bbox231
  • charlie C

    Yeah boxie, maybe you and Vinnie can celabrate over a super sized tapaocia down at the Block. Everyone knows you and Bacon have giant chips on your shoulders making you blind to what is best for the most. That’s the facts.

  • bbox231

    Anyone want to weigh in on who’s been “nursing a grudge” so as to “provoke a disputation”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_on_shoulder

    Admittedly, while *I* may have a “chip” as you say – - it has NOTHING to do with developers and has everything to do with issues you remain staunchly unwilling to contemplate. (Perhaps with the desire to “provoke”, Charles ??? – LMAO)

    and, indeed, I’ll “celabrate” when the residents of Oakland stick it to Lew-baby on a new lease-rate. Here’s hoping they’ll be smart enough to do so.

    See, the cool thing is that instead of Lew exiting cleanly to stage-left and sticking Oakland with the ongoing maintenance, demolition and/or remediation of the current stadium, Oakland residents now have the chance to return the favor and do – as you say – “what is best for the most”.

    With Oakland residents and taxpayers now in the drivers seat they have a very rare opportunity to contemplate and recover some (ALL?) of the costs that Lew was prepared to stick them with had he been successful in leaving town.

    Lew has made very clear that there’s no love for his current host city and facility, it’s purely a business matter and, as such – it’s purely a matter of time before he bails again and we should all be focussed on the bottom line – - – just as Lew was when he was trying to locate another partner willing to concede land and money.

    Here’s a suggestion for Mayor Quan – - tally up the ongoing cost of operations for the remaining five years, add to it the anticipated costs of demolition and remediation of this concrete mess, add-in a little something for uncertainty and future risk, adjust the total for time-value and then add 100% to allow room for “negotiations”. . divide by sixty . . now THAT’S a monthly lease-rate calculation that’s in EVERYONE’s best interest!!!!!!

    Anything less than this is just one more concession to Lew’s benefit which is made up of the future expenses Oakland residents will be stuck with when(not if) Lew finally locates a new field in which to plant his seed.

    P.S. – I’ll take a look around for some of that “Tapaocia” stuff . . . not sure what that is.

  • west

    Michael of Niles AKA Charley C
    We are worried about your obsessiveness, it is a sign of mental Health Problems.. Please seek help.

    Alameda Social Services :. Mental Health – Alameda County Social …

    http://www.alamedasocialservices.org

  • Tony Irvington

    I’m sorry, I came late to this ballpark issue and then really didn’t give it much consideration. But since it is the main topic around here I’m willing to give it a run up the pennant pole.

    Let’s start from scratch.
    Can someone tell me how life in Irvington will be improved if there’s a ballpark for the A’s in Fremont? What will a stadium give us that we don’t already have a mere bart ride away?. It can’t get much more convenient than that.
    Jobs? 80 days a year? maybe a hundred if they go all the way?
    It would finally give us a big and cool looking civic structure again. Hey! Maybe we could incorporate CITY HALL into the stadiums design! Ha! Seriously!

    What else is on the list of why a ballpark would be kickass? Anyone?
    No negatives for now, just positives.
    thanks.

  • west

    Jobs 80-100 @ minumum wages. Life in Irvington, Traffic, Traffic, people looking for a liqour store.
    This has been kicked around forever, this is my last word on it. We are feeding a mental ill person more ammo, is that what you are doing? Stirring the ashes hoping to start him up again… Shame on you

  • bbox231

    Nope nope nope . . . . . Please, let’s not confuse a renewal of the original debate which argued pro’s and con’s of stadeeumm development with my (current) chuckling at Lew’s relative demise.

    Mr Wolfe has done a nice job of making his distaste for his fan base and the community of Oakland pretty clear over these last several years. Seemingly, the tables have turned now, and, at least the taxpayers of Oakland have an opportunity to return his many favors in the form of a new (and higher?) lease payment. In negotiating parlance, this is called “having the other guy over a barrel”.

    Oakland would have every legitimate right to, based on Lew’s own words and actions, anticipate his exodus in five years and, as a result, include shutdown, teardown, and remediation expenses over the new and remaining lease term.

    This thread has NOTHING to do with the pro’s and con’s of stadium development. *THAT* topic was settled long ago.

  • charlie C

    #10 Bruce don’t be so hypocritical…as you are aware I saw you last night, you might not have been “looking for a liqour store” but you sure as heck were in search of an adult beverage or two to guzzle down. San Jose not happining Bruce, so it looks like the stadium is working its way back to Fremont and that’s a good thing! We could sure use the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars your side continues to oppose. I would suggest if “Bacon means business” he will have to quit nursing the chip on his shoulder and do what is right for the most of us and get the A’s to Fremont!
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/A-s-seek-new-5-year-Coliseum-lease-4140000.php

  • Tony Irvington

    —We interrupt tonights program to give you a brief update on the TCB Institute’s think-tank debate over the Ballpark in Fremont—

    According to -Bbox, West and Charlie-
    a ballpark in Fremont would be great because

    1. People would be looking for a liqour store.

    (we can assume this would create opportunities for potential liquour store owners-creating a portion of the..)

    2. 80-100 minimum wage jobs.*

    Charlie argues that this figure is off by at least 1900
    jobs but does not mention how or give even ONE specific example of a job that would be created.

    or how a ballpark would raise

    3. Billions of dollars

    for Fremont.

    …and now we return to you to tonight’s regularly scheduled progam -Mel Brook’s Blazing Saddles Starring Cleavon Little as the Sheriff and Alex Karros as MONGO.

  • west

    MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL GOOD NIGHT

  • charlie C

    #13 The positive economic benefits of professional sports are undeniable…ATT Park is a typical example of jobs and revenue a ballpark will create. Here you go Ton-i…read it and reap.
    http://www.ehow.com/list_6764597_benefits-having-sport-franchises-cities_.html
    4. Recall Bacon.

  • Tony Irvington

    They’re undeniable yet, apparently, indescribable, because you can’t name one specific benefit the city of Fremont or the Irvington District will reap.

    The only thing ATT Park is a typical example of is a ballpark and that’s not even relevant unless you believe that, since Fremont is typical to San Francisco since they are both examples of cities.

    That you then stumble over your usual Auto/Bacon mantra while lunging for ehow to somehow solve your Nohow makes me think that …..the button and
    opppsie daisy. charlie has a dirty diapee
    and teacher says he will have to be sent
    home .

    A link to Ehow? I got a better link for you…

    Open your mouth pooch.

  • worble

    Hey has anyone seen the area around ATT park in the off season or when there is no game. I have and know of at least five people that have opened and closed there buisness because no patrons when there is no game. As a smart buisness owner here and in other cities I would not ever build a buisness around what other people control. I.E NUMMI how many buisness where lost because they built thier buisness arund what NUMMI was doing.NO BALLPARK IN FREMONT YEAH!!!

  • west

    ATT park is located on the Pier in San Francisco. The Pier 39, etc has long been a tourist destination. When you go to a ball game in SF, you go to a nice restuarant, or a club, there are many choices.
    ATT park is sucessful because of it’s LOCATION.
    The A’s ought to consider Jack London Square, since there is a developer trying to revive it. ATT is a good model for JLS.
    The whole Fremont thing was a development of many homes and businesses, when that ewent away so did Lew.

  • Vinnie Bacon

    Charlie,

    I find it incredible that you are still fixated on the ballpark and continue to repeat your tired old criticism of me with almost every single post you make.

    First, there were many people who had the same concerns I had about the ballpark, including our last Mayor Gus Morrison. The Wiebel protest against the ballpark drew about 1,000 people and the one at City Hall drew about 800. I was hardly alone in my opinion.

    Second, the original ballpark idea failed because of unsolved traffic issues that caused Catellus to pull the plug. The Warm Springs site was a last ditch attempt to come up with another site. Lew Wolfe abandoned that only two or three months after it was first proposed. To think that myself and/or FCN killed the ballpark is to greatly misunderstand the issue.

    I think the ballpark would not have significantly helped Fremont’s economy. You think it would have. Of course, neither of us know for sure. But in your world, you must be right and those that don’t agree with you are simply wrong and deserve unending criticism. I try to show respect to everyone, even those I disagree with. Maybe there’s a lesson in there for you.

    Here’s an interesting article from last week that talks about the Mt. Davis fiasco and how Oakland and Alameda County are still paying for it. It turns out that ‘billions’ is appropriate when talking about stadiums (see first quote below). There are professors from Harvard and Stanford that do find your claims of automatic positive economic benefits “deniable” (second quote). Maybe you can explain to us why Oakland hasn’t experienced such “positive economic benefits” from their three professional sports teams (third quote).

    The article that you quote (from eHow?!) uses the word “can” in every single potential benefit it lists. There is no analysis presented that documents real economic benefits of even a single stadium deal. In the past I’ve provided links to numerous objective, well-researched articles (such as the one above) that document instances where the host city did not experience the promised economic benefits.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/oakland-pays-17-million-for-nfl-raiders-as-cops-get-cut.html

    “Publicly financed stadiums for all U.S. major-league sports, including soccer, cost taxpayers about $10 billion more than forecast when accounting for the costs of land, infrastructure, operations and lost property taxes, …”

    “Meanwhile, the argument that taxpayer subsidies for NFL owners help create jobs doesn’t hold up, according to studies by Coates, Harvard’s Long and Stanford’s Noll. Rather, the presence of stadiums leads to a shift in spending away from other activities, their research shows. Residents are hurt as cities steer funds away from health, safety and other forms of entertainment, according to Coates.”

    “Oakland and Alameda County over the past five years split $132.5 million of operating costs and debt service related to the stadium, according to financial reports. Stadium revenue doesn’t cover that amount, according to city disclosures.”

  • Vinnie Bacon

    Let’s look at some recent news articles on stadium/ballpark funding.

    http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121222/BETTERLIFE05/312230027?gcheck=1

    “It was supposed to be a reliable way to help cover the cost of a new downtown arena: The building’s events would bring throngs of people downtown who would eat, drink and shop nearby. Their sales taxes would be captured to help pay for the KFC Yum! Center.

    “But the arena hasn’t added as much to tax revenues as expected during its first three years — producing less than one-third of the amount originally projected.”

  • Vinnie Bacon

    Another article from this month. It turns out the Marlins deal, which I’ve posted about before, was so bad that the SEC is now investigating the financing behind the deal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204826704577077230342369436.html

    “The federal regulators will examine nearly $500 million in bonds sold to fund the ballpark and the financial deal struck for stadium parking garages, according to the county and to a statement from the team.

    “A person involved with the ballpark’s financing said the investigation may revolve around the Marlins’ claims that the team needed public help because it could not afford to pay for a new ballpark.”

  • Vinnie Bacon

    Sorry, just one more link. Miami was also promised that the area around the new ballpark would prosper.

    There is a growing body of evidence and research that indicates stadium deals are more often bad than good for the host city. I found a number of other similar articles from this year.

    With that let me wish you all a Happy Holidays and a Merry Christmas. One of my New Year’s resolutions will be to not discuss this issue again unless it comes up as a real proposal.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/21/3108495/marlins-biggest-lie-can-be-seen.html

    “But the biggest lie was nestled in the long line of storefronts built into the bottom story of the parking garages the city built for the new stadium, the supposed throbbing heart of the community revitalization. And every store still empty. Every one. All 53,281 square feet of retail. …

    “Economists, over and again, have warned local politicians that the promises that come with a new baseball stadium are downright worthless. There was the 1997 study by the Brookings Institution warning that “no recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. 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 minimis.””

    Or the 2004 report from the Cato Institute, finding “The presence of pro sports teams in 37 metropolitan areas in our sample had no measurable positive impact on the overall growth rate of real per capita income in those areas.””

    And there are scores more studies just like those. Google baseball stadium and economics and the findings are nearly all dismal. Like the famed study by Lake Forest College economist Robert Baade, who looked at new stadiums in 30 cities and found no measureable economic impact in 27 and an economic downturn in the other three.”

  • worble

    #18 Att park is not a sucess for the buisness around the general area of the park if you go there today or tomorrow you will find that there are no tourist near the ballpark during the off season.you are right about one thing Fremont was a pawn for Lew take em for all they got wolfe. He was never going to build in Fremont.

  • bbox231

    Well thought-out and substantiated responses, Vinnie. Thanks for taking the time, again.

    Sadly, in some variation, each of thes points have been stated before.

    I, for one, appreciate that you at least have the courage to make use of ALL opportunities to engage with your constituency and are willing to slug thru the muck that comes with that opportunity. In so doing, you make clear a personal respect for constituency not evidenced by others.

    For whatever reasons, other members of the council dont seem so enthusiastic about chatting with their community and instead seemingly choose to limit their exposure to consituency. I’m certain that Bill H and Anu N would quickly point to Charlie’s not-so-unique brand of nonesense as a good reason to stay the heck out of these exchanges. Perhaps, for them, the downside risks are simply perceived as too great.

    Charles clearly has no desire to engage in any meaningful dialogue. S/he/it continues to ignore fact and relies on personalized anecotes as a foundation for an argument.

    Is it only coincidence that a preponderance of the Fremont political promotionals from our last campaign season also made significant use of this same kind of emotional appeal?

    Thank you.

  • Dan Ondrasek

    Thank you Vinnie.
    Until there is a rebuttal to EACH of the FACTs stated, the opposition is nothing more than a heckler in an empty stadium.

  • west

    Good Info Vinnie, Perhaps we have heard the last of this from Charliey, but I doubt it. He obviously needs help.
    I promise not to respond to any ballpark blogs..

  • charlie C

    #26…No Bruce you haven’t…Gald to see Vinnie trying to justify one of his many bad decisions!

  • charlie C

    #26…No Bruce you haven’t…the cognitive disorder you continue to display is getting worse. No doubt the true-believer syndrome has certainly possessed you and most of the vocal minority that in wagged the dog right here in Fremont. Come on now Vinnie know you got away with one. The naysayers of San Francisco and San Jose had been successful shooting down stadium proposals in the past using many of the same charlatan points spewed out here by the councilman. Unfortunately the A’s caved to the unsavory tactics of this vocal minority. In the end the good guy won won in San Francisco… those in favor of what was best for their community pushed back and have benefited while Fremont continues to be a place that people drive thru as fast as they can. Check and mate!

  • charlie C

    #26…No Bruce you haven’t…Does Vinnie really expect us to believe the 40 plus U.S. cities that have professional sports franchises in them have all been had? A bonanza of increased employment, expanded consumer leisure spending, economic development and civic pride is all bad I guess? Quoting charlatans and demonizing developers… is that’s what really matters!

  • Vinnie Bacon

    Bbox,

    Thanks for your comments. I’m happy to participate in a public forum like this. I’m hoping we can work to bring more intelligent discussion here now that Chris has been adding blog posts more frequently.

    As for the A’s, yes most of this has been repeated ad nauseum. What I do find interesting is the number of recent articles that are calling out the magnitude of the subsidies that have been given to sports teams, and questioning the lofty promises of economic development that are often made.

  • charlie C

    #30…Vinnie, hope you can grow up a little in 2013 and do what is best for *all* of people in Fremont. We all noticed you did not get off to a very good start with that *nasty* memo demonizing developers you and yours sent out right after you were elected. It appears to all that you have a giant chip on your shoulder dude, and if you want to be Mayor it would be wise for you to get your compassionate numbers up to over minus 2. As you know 40 plus American cities have professional sports franchises and you appear to be saying they’re all just duped fools. Is that truet? If so you need to grow up Vinnie and suck it up for what is best for *all* the people of Fremont! I welcome the comments of your surrogates for they are most always just so amusing!

  • Tony Irvington

    “A heckler in an empty stadium.”

    That’s brilliant Dan! #25

  • bbox231

    It starts to click once you realize that the preponderance of the stadium economy is simply one of redistribution, e.g., the events hosted therein, take money from the pockets out of ticket holders (an overwhelming majority of whom are fixed-income folks like you and me) and funnel that money into the pockets of a few people like the owners and players. The other economic dynamics are a virtual rounding error in the greater balance sheet. In lay-person terms (Charlie – take note) the construction workers are employed for a very small fraction of the operating life of the stadium – so, while these are good paying jobs, they dont add up to much – and the food-service and other ongoing “employees” payrolls are a small fraction of the salaries and fees paid directly to players and owners, as well. . . . net, net – he who argues these as any kind of economic pivot point is . . . . uninformed.

    Because they operate on a fixed-income, the money they lay down for tickets is removed from their total entertainment budget. Other forms of entertainment are sacrificed. So, instead of going to a movie a couple of times this week or month and/or instead of eating out a few times this week, we’ll save our money for those tickets. The “losers” are elsewhere in the same economic geography but are typically restauranteers, movie houses, and other forms of entertainment.

    Conversly, the owners and players return almost none of this gathered wealth to the local economy. Net-net, these things are, by-in-large, an economic drain. The money that flows into the pockets of the owners and players comes OUT of the pockets of other regional entertainment forms. That’s not to say that a few restauarants in the immediate vicintity wont do very well. . . . they likely will – simply as a result of proximity. But, again, the guy across town is likely the loser in this equation.

    Of course, in the case of F-mont, the disparity between the up-side created for the folks running – for example – a wine bar and a couple of restauarants was more obvious than that and the “losers” was even more obvious. One only had to walk across the parking lot to find a negative consequence. Even a moron should have seen that virtually ANY NON-FOOD-SERVICE business in the vicininty would have been seriously compromised on any given game-day as a direct result of the ensuing traffic and parking problems.

    Maybe it’s one of the reasons so very few of Fremont residents supported this thing.

    P.S. – Continuing to offer up AT&T as an example of success is vastly uninformed as has been pointed out herein time and time and time again. The So-Mo real-estate redev effort and ensuing success was well underway long before AT&T park was even mentioned and was (largely) fueled by Internet software houses seeking places to set up shop. PacBell Park was an adjunct to an already underway renewal in this area.

    P.P.S – #30 – the “subsidies” come in a variety of forms and, I agree, in their more recent coverage, media, which used to be huge proponents of these things, has been forced – largely by savy citizenry- to begin to mention the many ways that their communities give away tremendous value for these things.

  • charlie C

    Here are the metropolitan areas that have been screwed over by professional sport franchises. Good thing we don’t have one in Fremont…you should be proud!
    1.New York City 2.Los Angeles 3.Baltimore–Washington 4.San Jose-San Francisco 5.Chicago 6.Boston 7.Dallas-Fort Worth 8.Philadelphia 9.Houston 10.Miami 11.Detroit 12. Phoenix 13.Minneapolis–Saint Paul 14.Atlanta 15.Cleveland 16. St. Louis 17. Tampa Bay 18.Pittsburgh 19.Seattle 20.Kansas City 21.San Diego 22.Charlotte 23.Cincinnati 24.Portland 25. Indianapolis 26.Milwaukee 27. Nashville 28.Buffalo 29New Orleans 30.Columbus 31.Salt Lake City 32.Orlando 33.Sacramento 34.San Antonio 35.Raleigh 36.Jacksonville 37.Oklahoma City 38. Memphis 39.Green Bay and 9 in Canada.

  • worble

    Unlike you Charlie tuna the smart people of Fremont are VERY PROUD.

  • charlie C

    Yeah Worbs…Fremont didn’t need those job!

  • Vinnie Bacon

    Charlie,

    Let me get this straight. You post on this site regularly for years, criticizing me in almost every one of your posts, while going on and on about an issue that has been dead for years, and yet I’m the one with a chip on his shoulder?

    In talking to voters I found that most people were NOT in favor of a ballpark in Fremont. We clearly differ in what we think is best for “all” of the people in Fremont. We’ll have to leave it at that.

    The issue at hand is should cash-strapped cities provide large subsidies for sports teams to relocate to, or to stay, in their city. The costs and benefits of sports venues should be analyzed alongside the other opportunities a city has to attract business (i.e. streetscape improvements, a performing arts center, don’t lay off 200 cops). In my opinion, the ballpark proposals developed for Fremont would have required the city to pay huge costs that would not have been offset by their benefits. As Bbox notes, these ‘costs’ are of several different types (i.e. tax breaks, lost business elsewhere, time stuck in ballpark traffic).

    I never said that American cities with sports franchises are all duped fools. That’s your interpretation of what I said. I do believe that more and more people are starting to question the large public subsidies that have traditionally been used to finance stadiums.

    You can continue posting on this topic if you want. I feel I’ve already spent way too much time on it and should move on to issues that are actually relevant to Fremont today.

  • bbox231

    #25 – Not quite “empty” though, is it Dan?

  • Dan Ondrasek

    It’s like the neighbor’s Yorkshire yipping in the night.
    After a while – it’s white noise.

    Again, great job to Vinnie and those of you who keep some meaningful dialogue on this.

  • west

    Again, great job to Vinnie and those of you who keep some meaningful dialogue on this.

    This forum can be a great place for passing along local information. The Oakland Tribune does not do a good job of reporting local info.

    This can be a great place for discussing local politics!

  • west

    Until there is a rebuttal to EACH of the FACTs stated,

    “the opposition is nothing more than a heckler in an empty stadium”

    Well OK Charlie, Put up or SHUT UP……

  • bbox231

    I knew I had seen it somewhere, and it took me a while to re-relocate – but, this article places sports entitlements (my euphamism) into the greater context of the so-called fiscal cliff.

    P.S. – this IS NOT just about the stadium-side economics.

    http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40595178/

    After you read the entire article, you can thank your lucky stars that Fremont had the good fortune to have stumbled its way out of such a deal.

    (Would have beeen swell if Anu or Bill could lay claim to having been smart enough to have CONSCIOUSLY avoided this kind of pitfall but, that’s a whole ‘nother story . .. .)

  • WarbleFly

    Mark my words; the loss of the stadium will FOREVER haunt this old town. You guys, Vinnie included will continue to pat each other on the back, but in no way did your position ever have the support of a majority of Fremont’s population. Had we the people been allowed to vote, you bet your ass the stadium would have been built. NIMBYs won the day,but that doesn’t mean it will go away. Fremont continues to drift as a city with no character, without anything to tie this city together. My Dad is already consoling my kids on what could have been, someday I will have to explain what could have been as well, we will probably share this tale in a depleted “Block” empty retail space where a new dynamic neighborhood would have anchored that area as well as the rest of the region. You guys can throw biased stats around all you want, but it doesn’t change a damn thing. Our town lost its chance to finally act like the 4th largest city in the Bay Area.
    That said, I’m not in favor of bashing Vinnie or the rest of the anti-vision crowd, the damage has been done. I even support some of Vinnie’s positions, I hope he can do a good job. But what can we do to elevate our town, something that brings folks from across Fremont’s wildly diverse community together including folks from all incomes?
    My idea is to transform Ohlone College into a full fledged University. That could bring jobs, name recognition, civic pride and pull this old town together.
    Who knows, maybe I will be able tell my grand kids, yeah we missed the chance of lifetime when we were cheated out of the A’s stadium, but our town did attain a world class University. Will this improbable scenario ever happen? In this town where a weak city council gives in to loud super minority NIMBYs? Probably not, but I have been wrong before.
    OK, all said, have a Happy New Year, yah bums!

  • charlie C

    #37 Vinnie (Mad Dog) Bacon… DUDE, The chip on your shoulder has turned into voices in your head. Stop trying justify something you were clearly wrong about and move on. The people of Fremont know that your tagline (Bacon means bussiness) was just a very a big bag of steaming hooey and you should be ashamed!. As Bruce (the unstable one) #40 once said “To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish” Give up Vinnie you lost!

  • worble

    #43 This is funny do you know that the majority of the population of Fremont does not even give a crap about baseball now if you are talking cricket or soccer stadium you might be able to win the votes of these people.Wake up WarblHigh and Charlie tuna you two are not the majority of Fremont. Now put down the bong and let the smoke clear from the room and you will find that guess what? still NO BALLPARK IN FREMONT!!

  • Dan Ondrasek

    To paraphrase Gary Larson:

    What we Say to Dogs:

    “Okay Ginger! I’ve Had it! You stay out of the garbage! Understand Ginger? Stay out of the garbage or else?

    What Charlie Hears:

    “Blah, blah Ballpark! Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Ballpark! Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah,

  • Dan Ondrasek

    …yip,yip!

  • bbox231

    #43 – You’re right – the FCN didn’t have the backing of a majority – and neither did the pro-stadium faction.

    (Just where were all of these proponents anyway?????!!!)

    “When you have facts on your side – argue the facts. When the law is on your side – argue the law.
    When you have neither – pound the table.”

  • charlie C

    #48 Just the facts Boxie, Dan-O, Worbs and Bruce…You and your efforts to intimidate me thus far have fallen way short. You true believers are trying once again trying to swiftboat the good people of Fremont and this time we’re really on to you. Your tactics are predictable, your long winded rebuttals are extremely boring and practically unreadable, It’s about time to face the facts. You were clearly wrong in your opposition to the the A’s coming to Fremont and now your guilt ridden responses and not winning anyone over. Your leader has once made a fool of himself and now appear to once again gone into hiding. “Bacon mean bussiness ” has been revealed to be a big lie. Time to move on suckers…you lost!

  • bbox231

    When you have neither – pound the table.