Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So crime will plummet and the budget will be fixed by a new baseball stadium?
Oh I get it, another defensive person from San Jose. Did I say that? if it's helps a little bit that is a good thing, it gives people jobs and will bring more people into Oakland to help boost the local economy.
Oh I get it, another defensive person from San Jose. Did I say that? if it's helps a little bit that is a good thing, it gives people jobs and will bring more people into Oakland to help boost the local economy.
Makes perfect sense to me. Could you imagine this at Jack London Square or in Uptown?
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/08/13/ba_ballpark_112_pc.jpg (broken link)
Oh I get it, another defensive person from San Jose. Did I say that? if it's helps a little bit that is a good thing, it gives people jobs and will bring more people into Oakland to help boost the local economy.
What the **** does my being from San Jose have to do with pie-in-the-sky hopes for a baseball stadium solving more severe and unrelated social issues? And by the way, you're obviously the defensive one. I said nothing bad about Oakland, nor have I ever done so on this board. All I did was point out the lame dramatics. The A's won't make or break Oakland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Makes perfect sense to me. Could you imagine this at Jack London Square or in Uptown?
Your old mayor already vetoed an uptown stadium to build condos instead. The A's could be there now.
Your old mayor already vetoed an uptown stadium to build condos instead. The A's could be there now.
I would agree with you if I believed that Lew Wolff ever intended to keep the A's here. Otherwise you are spot on.
On the other hand, I really like what's happening in Uptown as far as the growing arts community. A stadium would alter the focus.
There are plenty of other great spots in Oakland. Wolff picked the worst one-the current location, to try and build. I think he did it on purpose with the intent to fail.
What the **** does my being from San Jose have to do with pie-in-the-sky hopes for a baseball stadium solving more severe and unrelated social issues? And by the way, you're obviously the defensive one. I said nothing bad about Oakland, nor have I ever done so on this board. All I did was point out the lame dramatics. The A's won't make or break Oakland.
No one policy really makes or break any city. To not consider a more centrally-located baseball stadium to be a positive, however, is really, really ignorant of the influences that they have had on other cities.
In my home-town of Cleveland, OH, Jacob's Field in 1994, undoubtedly help rejuvinate a previously-plagued downtown center. Along with Gund Arena (Cavaliers) the same year, it brought BOOMING business to Tower City and Public Square (a mall inside of a refurbished train station a few blocks from the new complex's.
Bars along E. 9th and Ontario, etc, began booming as well. Tower City put in a large new food court and before games, they allowed you to park for $6 dollars in their underground lot. By doing so, you entered the mall and they built a below-ground walkway all the way to the new stadium complex's. It's been nothing but great business - especially when the teams are having good years and drawing good crowds.
This, of course, says nothing of the downtown hotel industry, restaurants, bars, and just the overall feeling of having good people spend more of their time downtown, increasing the overall feeling of safety.
I also believe there are a lot of similarities between Cleveland and Oakland. Nearly equal (and diverse) populations with major concerns regarding poverty, crime, downtown safety, interest in living downtown, and both at one time had industries which lead the country in some areas and now, do not.
Would a new stadium downtown make Oakland? I wouldn't say that, but it's undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Cleveland still has the problems it did before. But visit downtown now and visit in 1992 and you'd see the difference yourself.
What the **** does my being from San Jose have to do with pie-in-the-sky hopes for a baseball stadium solving more severe and unrelated social issues? And by the way, you're obviously the defensive one. I said nothing bad about Oakland, nor have I ever done so on this board. All I did was point out the lame dramatics. The A's won't make or break Oakland.
Your old mayor already vetoed an uptown stadium to build condos instead. The A's could be there now.
You always throw some snide remark then try to play the victim. This isn't the first time i've read one of your responces.
Most of the problems in Oakland are related to income/Jobs and lack there of. It's simple sociology, not sure what part of that you don't understand. Moving the stadium OUT of Oakland will take with it thousands of jobs, mostly local Oakland residents. It's not about the team breaking Oakland it's about them leaving being one more Hit to the city. You're not from here so you don't get it.
You always throw some snide remark then try to play the victim. This isn't the first time i've read one of your responces.
Most of the problems in Oakland are related to income/Jobs and lack there of. It's simple sociology, not sure what part of that you don't understand. Moving the stadium OUT of Oakland will take with it thousands of jobs, mostly local Oakland residents. It's not about the team breaking Oakland it's about them leaving being one more Hit to the city. You're not from here so you don't get it.
It's like you're arguing from a template and have no idea when to say what. How the **** am I playing victim here? It's you that's saying the big, bad Wolff is going to cripple Oakland by moving a baseball team and the "thousands" of peanut-chucking jobs.
At least you have the monument to baseball-killing that is Mt Davis. That was a great move on Oakland's part. I'll bet Lew Wolff was part of that, too. Whatever, I don't understand it because I'm not from there.
And for the record, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of A's fans. However, if Wolff was leveraging loyalty against the city to build the stadium for him, that would be much different. That's how he's painted here. As it stands, though, ownerships is going to fund it themselves. You can't tell someone where they should spend hundreds of millions of dollars if they are not confident they will see those dollars work for them. Even in the philanthropic Haas ownership, money was lost and the highest-paid player in baseball was getting $3M per year. Things are much steeper now.
It's like you're arguing from a template and have no idea when to say what. How the **** am I playing victim here? It's you that's saying the big, bad Wolff is going to cripple Oakland by moving a baseball team and the "thousands" of peanut-chucking jobs.
At least you have the monument to baseball-killing that is Mt Davis. That was a great move on Oakland's part. I'll bet Lew Wolff was part of that, too. Whatever, I don't understand it because I'm not from there.
And for the record, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of A's fans. However, if Wolff was leveraging loyalty against the city to build the stadium for him, that would be much different. That's how he's painted here. As it stands, though, ownerships is going to fund it themselves. You can't tell someone where they should spend hundreds of millions of dollars if they are not confident they will see those dollars work for them. Even in the philanthropic Haas ownership, money was lost and the highest-paid player in baseball was getting $3M per year. Things are much steeper now.
You're playing victim by pretending you don't know what you said with your sarcastic reply about how a baseball stadium is supposedly going to solve all Oakland problems, as if I even said that in the first place.
You still don't get it, I don't know why you think it's about a stadium and team turning Oakland into a Silicon Valley type city. Removing it will HURT the city.
You're playing victim by pretending you don't know what you said with your sarcastic reply about how a baseball stadium is supposedly going to solve all Oakland problems, as if I even said that in the first place.
You still don't get it, I don't know why you think it's about a stadium and team turning Oakland into a Silicon Valley type city. Removing it will HURT the city.
First of all, that's called playing dumb, not playing victim.
Second, you said "A's need to stay in Oakland and get a new stadium it will change the city for the better." That's implying that staying will help, not that leaving will hurt. They are not necessarily the same.
I do think that moving to a better location in Oakland would help, but not just because it's "Oakland." The Coliseum provides little to the surrounding community, which is why it's a shame that Jerry Brown shot down the uptown plan. That would have contributed much more than the facility itself. I can't remember if that was under Wolff or Schott, but both were branded as evil men with eyes for the South Bay and yet that solution fell through because of the city, not the owner.
Government has to create an atmosphere for business, not the other way around. Like it or not, but baseball is a business. I'm a sports fan (though not baseball fan) so I realize it's disgusting and all, but that's the reality. Oakland did its part to make baseball less appealing at the Coliseum and then closed down a very viable alternative at uptown. This is not all on the owners.
Contrast it with the Sacramento Kings right now. Their owners could afford a new arena but are playing the old card of threatening to skip town if one is not built for them. They've also been rumored to move to San Jose and I'd personally much rather have basketball here than baseball, but I'm not going on and on to Sacramentans (?) about that situation because it is truly different. Sacramento has now picked things up with Cal Expo to make the business climate attractive to the Maloofs and NBA. Even if it looks like an iffy proposal, at least it's something. Until now, Oakland officials have merely sat back and banked on pity from glorified bloggers in the Chronicle.
The reality is that the A's are leaving Oakland. Whether that's San Jose or somewhere else is still to be determined. San Jose (and the south bay in general) certainly has a good case due to its demographics and corporate base. Yes, SF is still the cultural hub of the Bay Area, but SJ is the largest city in the greater Bay Area (in population and land area) and the 10th largest city in the country and still growing. Geographically SJ is not centrally-located but the drive from the wealthier parts of Coco And Alameda County is not bad (680). These are the people who have the discretionary income to buy season tickets. If the Haas family hadn't given the Giants the rights to San Jose (for a park that never was built), we'd be past this whole "territorial rights" issue. I think in the long run the territorial rights issue will be resolved and either the A's or another team will move to SJ. In the long, run, it is too lucrative of a market for baseball to pass up. Yes, everyone picks on Oakland but it must be mentioned that Oakland's former mayor rejected some sites and built condos on these sites to pay off his developer buddies. Don't forget Al Davis and the Raiders fiasco. Talk about bad business. I have my doubts that the City could even pull of this kind of project even if Wolfe was interested (which he's not). What is the budget deficit now, $80 million? San Jose has a spot in downtown (Diridon South) with transit and everything ready to go (if not for the territorial rights issue). I've spent a lot of time at the coliseum. Its awful what the City of Oakland helped the raiders do to it. There are great memories but let's face it, this is the worst baseball stadium in the major leagues. The only stadium that was worse was RFK stadium and the Nationals don't play there anymore. One question for anyone wanting the A's to stay in Oakland. What VIABLE sites are left for an Oakland stadium (besides the coliseum parking lot)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
