Part of the Bay Area News Group

Fremont named nation’s 3rd most “Thriving City”

By Chris DeBenedetti
Thursday, August 22nd, 2013 at 3:09 pm in Uncategorized.

Only San Jose and Irvine were ranked higher.

The Daily Beast’s website was the judge and jury.

I imagine if you’re a homeowner and these lists help enhance the perceptions around your real estate, then you’re for it. When you reach a critical mass of lists on which the city appears, it starts to mean something.

But what are your thoughts on this stuff … Do you care about these kind of lists? Are they relevant to you?

 

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

  • Vinnie Bacon

    While these kinds of lists don’t determine a lot, I think it is telling that we came up so high on the list. We’re definitely doing well financially which is what the criteria for this list was focused on.

    What I want to know is where is the picture taken from. Is that Warren Ave. with the Mission flyover on top? It’s certainly not the image I would have chosen to represent our fine city. :)

  • J. S.

    I checked the list. The west is the majority of the of the top 20.
    I was surprised to see Lincoln Nebraska on the list?
    The list is interesting but about as useless as a attaboy, LOL

  • charlie C

    #1
    Care to comment on what a professional sports might bring to a community???
    “Last year’s matchup, at the Miami Dolphins’ Sun Life Stadium, generated $103 million in economic impact for South Florida, including $15 million in tax revenue, a local study concluded.”
    http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_23903394/wwe-wrestlemania-at-new-49ers-stadium-santa-clara

  • worble

    #3 Wow the sky’s not fallen on Fremont.

  • Charlie C

    #4…read it and weep Worbs

    “Events at sports stadiums have the potential for attracting large crowds from outside the core. Spending could conceivably spill outside the stadium to other commercial activities in the city. If the stadium can be used for enough near-capacity events,the benefits to the city could be substantial. Public officials have bought into this logic, and, thus stadiums are often viewed as an economic development tool for reclaiming urban activities that have been lost to the suburbs. (BaadeandDye,1988: 266).

    The demonize a developer crowd is once again having to honestly face their past mistakes and shortcomings. Armed with facts and data I’ve successfully and righteously rebuked them at every turn. When I’ve given them the facts all they can do is get sanctimonious. Sweeping your blunders under the rug isn’t going to make them go away fellas. The improved quality of life for Fremont the surrounding community has been lost as a result of your misguided efforts and that is forever on you.

  • bbox231

    OMG!!!!

    Charles – did you bother to read the rest of the very article you are quoting??????

    On page 47 of that seminal study, the authors conclude – “There is no statistically discernible increase in municipal economic activity associated with a new stadium or sports franchise.”

    Baade and Dye (1998) are consistently sited by those of us who believe stadiums DO NOT deliver any financial benefit. That YOU would choose to quote this out of context and (seemingly) absent any awareness of the full result of this study is testimony to the lack of thought put into your position.

    WOW!

    Read the entire transcript here –

    http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF01287322.pdf

  • Charlie C

    WHOLLY COW!!!
    Then are we to assume you have also read what’s on page 94 of the Zimbelist report as well?
    GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!

    Read it and weep -
    http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?orig=SEO_SN&firstName=Zimbalist&lastName=+&trk=SEO_SN

  • bbox231

    Oh, gosh Charlie – I couldn’t ask for a better antagonist – thank you –

    Since the link you provided isn’t accessible, I’m forced to guess that you’re making reference to another rather famous and oft-quoted study. And this too was another one that we were quoting years and years ago that, in conclusion, says those of you who contend that stadiums are an economic advantage dont know what you’re talking about.

    Specifically, you’ll find that – in addition to supporting the conclusions of Baade, Siegfried and Zimbalist state (on page 105 of the link below) –

    “..there are three key reasons why professional sports teams do not promote economic devlopment: the substitution effect; extensive leakages; and the likely negative effect on local government budgets.”

    Available to anyone you’ll find the report here –

    http://www.csus.edu/indiv/h/howellj/econ145_s2009/Assignments/SportsStadiumFunding.pdf

    I’ll give you props, Charlie. At the very least you are digging for information and data. Unfortunately, you now need to learn to read an entire body of work and not simply grab the first two words that SEEM to support your one thought.

  • Dan Ondrasek
  • Dan Ondrasek
  • Dan Ondrasek

    Please note that I am, in no way, referring to any one individual on this or any web site…

  • charlie C

    We cling to our own point of view,
as though everything depended on it.
Yet our opinions have no permanence;
like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away.
    -Zhuangzi (on page it 897)
    Boxie and or Dan-O, dishing out subtle doses of condescension as is your sides custom is not the way to win an argument. I would strongly suggest that you and yours need to hold yourselves accountable when you realise you are wrong. Fremont has suffered a punch in the gut that it will never get over and that is totally on you.
    Check and mate!

  • bbox231

    Sorry Charlie.

    The only thing that Fremont has suffered from is the mentality that you and your pro-stadium, pro-Harrison, pro-Anu and pro-Susie faction have been allowed to proliferate for far, far too long. And, the results speak for themselves – both in this venue and around our town.

    Your diatribe is a wonderful example of why this faction needs to be reigned in and why it should not be allowed to procreate.

    A majority of our current “leadership” was borne out of the kinds of “thought” processes demonstrated in these last few posts.

    Fortunately for a majority of Fremontians, all that is beginning to change.

  • Vinnie Bacon

    OK. I promise this will be the last post on this topic unless there is a real development here in Fremont.

    “Care to comment on what a professional sports might bring to a community???”

    Yes, I acknowledge that there MIGHT be some small economic benefits. There also most certainly WILL be significant costs to acquire these teams.

    The link below shows an analysis of 12 cities that have acquired a major league soccer team. The average cost to the host city is over $90 million. Of course, it would cost much more to acquire an NFL or an MLB team. While we never came close to a final deal in Fremont, it’s clear the City would have had to make a major expenditure to acquire the team (via direct payments and development rights).

    http://www.dcfpi.org/why-is-dc-offering-more-financing-for-a-soccer-stadium-than-most-cities

    Common sense would dictate that one thoroughly look at the costs and benefits of such a massive undertaking, and to make sure there are no fatal flaws. I looked at the proposed project in 2008 and concluded there were just too many unresolved issues (largely parking and traffic related) that couldn’t be easily resolved. Indeed, Catellus and their major tenants at Pacific Commons agreed and pulled the plug on the project.

    I also read many of the scholarly articles on the economics of ballparks (such as the Baade and Dye report that you mention). I became convinced that the claims of large economic benefits were almost always overstated when analyzed objectively.

    It’s attitudes like yours – just assume that there will be huge economic benefits and go for it – that have gotten many cities into major financial trouble. We don’t even need to leave the county to find a prime example of this. Oakland just had to have the Raiders back in Oakland in 1995. Last year, Oakland had a budget shortfall of $32 million and will be making cuts such as laying off police officers as a result. Meanwhile, they’re still paying $14 million a year for improvements made to Oakland Coliseum as part of the deal to have the Raiders return. Starting this year “Mount Davis” will be tarped off so as to get more sellouts. Thus, the City and the County will still be paying for something that isn’t even being used anymore. Oh, and the Raiders have indicated they’re not too happy with the stadium anymore and would like someone to help them finance a new one. (Oakland’s share of a new stadium is estimated to be around $300 million.)

    What also troubles me is your attitude that you’re right and no one else has a right to espouse a differing opinion. I respect your right to your opinion. You, on the other hand, show enormous contempt for FCN and myself because we have a different vision of Fremont than you do. You imply that the people of Warm Springs should not have opposed a development because it ‘might’ have benefited Fremont as a whole. You and Marty can call me a NIMBY all you want. I will always defend the rights of local residents to speak their peace about any proposed development in their neighborhood.

    While I disagreed with a number of people on the ballpark, I always treated them with respect. I always try to keep things focused on the issues, and not on individuals. Instead of focusing on areas where we have disagreed, I try to work respectfully with the other Council Members on our common goal of making Fremont the best city it can be. You, on the other hand, have mounted a years long anonymous effort to disgrace me. At least half your posts are personal attacks on me. You repeatedly insult me, call me a liar, and even tried to make an issue out of our choice of family pet. Like me or not, I’m working hard for the City of Fremont. What are you doing to help improve Fremont?

    BTW, as this blog post notes, Fremont is doing just fine without a ballpark.

  • box231

    To which I’ll add one other (and final for me) thought.

    I might be persuaded to join the ranks that we could do one of the exceptional stadium developments, I might think we possessed the acumen to do so IF I didn’t see so many shining examples of our stumbling with projects of much smaller scale.

    We are – according to our actions – a small-town council and staff. We’ve lost the ability to navigate to a pre-determined result on a couple of pretty significant efforts. To wit – Centerville – Dumbarton Quarry. (I’ll leave the minor issues off the table for now) But – here’s the point – why would I be persuaded that Fremont would receive ANYTHING more when attempting to negotiate with very competent and aggressive developers?

    Sorry Charlie but Lou’s team is much much sharper than we’ll ever be and it’s far more likely that Fremont would have ended up with a deal, not unlike that of Oakland – - indebted well into the future – - and perhaps even beyond Lou’s next exodus for greener pastures.

    Off the box.
    Done.

  • Charlie C

    #14
    So will this really be the last post on this topic???

    “Yes, I acknowledge that there MIGHT be some small economic benefits.”
    -Councilman Vinnie Bacon

    Vinnie you the Box and the vocal minority really do not get it. Will you self proclaimed eggheads ever considered what would be the best for the most? It’s ok that both of yous probably have no interest in the wide wide world of sports. It’s not ok that you contributed in blowing up a once in a lifetime opportunity.
    Fremont would have most certainly reaped the economic benefits of having a professional sports franchise in its zipcode. Because your kneejeck reaction is to demonize the rich guy you screwed Fremont bigtime! The data shows there are 122 professional sports franchises in 49 major metropolitan communities in North America that have professional sports franchises no? So are you saying they have all been had?

  • Vinnie Bacon

    “So will this really be the last post on this topic???”

    I certainly hope so. The topic has been dead for several years now and there’s no point in bringing it up anymore.

  • Dan Ondrasek

    I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothematic_delusion

    That’s it – boycott him and it. I’m done. Not pissed just indifferent. It is WAY in the past and we can’t do anything about it.

    Let’s move on to the issues that have an impact like the Toxaphene that could be floating into the Newark and Fremont neighborhoods from the 100’ plus drop of toxic dirt from the Patterson development into the quarry.

    (Charlie: pretend they are dumping a truckload into one of the Niles trains and it “might” flick the switch to a topic more relevant and less embarrassing for you.)

    BTW, Vinnie: you’re post(s) are appreciated and spot on. Way to go.

  • Jasper Stein

    A monothematic delusion is a delusional state that concerns only one particular topic. This is contrasted by what is sometimes called multi-thematic or polythematic delusions where the person has a range of delusions (typically the case of schizophrenia). These disorders can occur within the context of schizophrenia or dementia or they can occur without any other signs of mental illness. When these disorders are found outside the context of mental illness, they are often caused by organic dysfunction as a result of traumatic brain injury, stroke, or neurological illness.

    People who suffer from these delusions as a result of organic dysfunction often do not suffer from any obvious intellectual deficiency nor do they have any other symptoms. Additionally, a few of these people even have some awareness that their beliefs are bizarre, yet they cannot be persuaded that their beliefs are false