Pages

15 August 2006

Wednesday night "rumble"

Wednesday night's game against the M's might not turn into Sharks vs. Jets, but it should still be fairly compelling. While the day is officially Fremont Day at the A's (with full pregame regalia), a "There is No 'A' in Fremont" rally will be held outside the stadium. I don't come back from overseas until this weekend, so I won't be there. Whatever happens, please keep it civil folks, and focus on the action on the field.

In related news, the Argus's Chris De Benedetti has a non-update of the Pacific Commons situation, but also has a quote from a NUMMI spokesperson that indicate that the A's and NUMMI have not had talks regarding the Warm Springs site. We'll have to wait until Wolff's speech at the end of the month for anything substantive.

25 comments:

jrbh said...

Kuiper and Fosse practically came out and said last night on KICU that the A's were moving to Fremont, and were very supportive of the idea.

I wrote a letter to KTVU (sister station of KICU, and the ratings gorilla of the two) complaining, and I urge anyone else who heard it to do so, too. Whether you're for it or against it, moving the A's is a complicated political and financial act and I don't need a couple of jock chuckleheads weighing in on it during my entertainment time.

Anonymous said...

JHRB...Go back over to the OAFC Chucklehead crowd and spew this crap where it will be appreciated. Most posters here WANT a new stadium somewhere within the Bay Area, and dont see Fremont as a bad option. A's to Fremont does NOT equal Dodgers from Brooklyn to L.A. Simple math 30 miles does NOT equal 3,000 miles. Go share some tears with Lil. Furthermore, I believe the A's announcers are employed by the team. What do you expect them to do? OAFCers, (or OAFS, as I have fondly come to think of you) do NOT tolerate reasonable debate on your website, pointing out that it is an OAKLAND ONLY site. Well, this site, is clearly NOT an Oakland only site, and most here see the viablilty of the A's remaining in the Bay Area being in a shiny new stadium that will most likely NOT be in Oakland.

Anonymous said...

Kuiper and Fosee work for the A's, don't they?

Marine Layer said...

Yes they do. Sounds like they're company men.

jeff said...

Why would you be outraged that employee's of Mr. Wolfe would parrot the party line of the company? And exactly what is KICU suppose to do about it? Fosse doesn't even work for them. Trying to silence the opposition is a little unseemly. I like both of them and am interested in any information that they can provide as it relates to the A's. And I would say the stadium issue if paramount to the future of the A's.

Anonymous said...

Well Sue Chan sucks. Halfway between the mound and home and she still manages to throw it into the ground.

Anonymous said...

If you read the article in the mercury about double headers, you will get a sense of how much lower attendance was in the past at the coliseum even than now.


AS much as I cant imagine anything other than the OAKLAND A's, the business sense in me has doubts there is a solution found there, under any stadium in the city

Anonymous said...

I think what you're seeing is the general attitude toward development in the Bay Area. There's a clear understanding that nothing can get done because everyone is trying to please everybody. This is a huge problem for the Bay Area and stupid to boot. Nothing can move forward if people are frightened of upsetting a couple of neighbors. Them's the breaks, folks! When it comes to my house I'll deal with it, so can you. Screw this NIMBY bullshit.

Give me ownership of the A's and the money Wolff's group has to work with and I guarantee I can get a deal done, let some people whine at city council meetings. This is the attitude it took to get the Giants park built despite major, decades-long public opposition to assisting the team. In the end SF helped the Giants, the park got built and the area that was once a squatters paradise is now a richy-rich district few of us can afford to live in. That ballpark is probably worth twice what the team is.

Wolff has asked the city of Oakland to clear space. Oakland, under Dellums, is willing to do that. But not if Wolff is still making kissy-face with other cities. Business and politics don't mix well, one of the ideologies must win out. Oakland isn't going to let Business win this time and Wolff seems deaf and dumb when it comes to urban politics.

I may have missed a few things but I can't seem to recall anything Wolff has done to encourage the city of Oakland to support his business aside from purchasing that business. Please post if you have specific examples.

James said...

Anon 11:06 --

You're missing a number of details in your post.

1. Wolff has asked the City of Oakland to identify locations within the city that would be be suitable for a ballpark and ballpark village. The City has failed to do so, after almost two years.

2. Wolff, and the A's, should not have to play second-fiddle to the Raiders! Yet, that is exactly what would happen if he says on current Coliseum property.

3. Any possible location within Oakland that has been suggested by anybody has seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and any viable location would require emminent domain proceedings affecting multiple owners and tenants. This process takes years, especially if current land-owners and tenants tie the matter up in court.

4. It is established precident that adjacent landowners be heard in matters affecting their property and their property rights. Any proposed development is subject to public hearings with public input. If the government wanted to put an airport behind your back yard, I can assure you your attitude wouldn't be "them's the breaks."

5. You indicate that "Oakland, under Dellums" is willing to "clear space" so that the team could stay in Oakland. I've seen no evidence of this. None, zero, zilch, nada! Certainly the current administration hasn't stepped up to the plate, and I have yet to see where Dellums has. And even if Oakland, under Dellums, has the will, I'm not conviced it has the means to keep the A's.

6. Wolff basically gave Oakland the right of first refusal. He told the city what is looking for and told them "have at it." The politicians in Oakland have made it clear that the city has bigger fish to fry. If Dellums' attitude is different, and I'm not sure it is, he'd better make it known now. Even if he were to try to keep the A's now, my opinion is that it's probably too late.

7. The reason Wolff is making "kissy faces" with other cities (actually, only one other city) is because Oakland hasn't met his terms and again, there is a big question as to whether the city actually can meet his terms. He was clear in the very beginning what he wanted... he owns the team and its his perogative to name his conditions! Oakland does not have a devine right to the A's. There are other cities who would love to have the A's and would be willing to work with him (Fremont, for instance!).

8. Wolff clearly is not "deaf and dumb to urban politics"... if he were, he wouldn't have his vast land-holdings and development projects in numerous cities.

Oakland Si said...

I was at both the rally (well attended) and the game (officially a sell-out but with many seats unoccupied; a NUMMI employee commented to me that 5,000 tickets were purchased for "celebrate Fremont", and they were giving away tickets at his job. I also saw the chartered busses (asked the driver, they were bringing people from Fremont)

. I can't imagine why anybody might think it would be anything but peaceful -- of course, the comment might have been tongue in cheek

Anonymous said...

Any word on how BART might accommodate the A's if they move to Pacific Commons? It looks like there's some pretty advanced plans already but even the earliest figures don't have construction starting for another 3 to 4 years. If Wolff get this all figured out in the next couple of months, it seems very possible to get a Stadium station.

http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/wsxalignment.asp

Oakland Si said...

From what I've read the Warm Springs station project doesn't expect to be completed and open for business until 2013 -- and that's assuming all of the preliminary steps are successful to allow construction to begin. Any additional stations would depend on funding and, I imagine, other regulatory steps.

jrbh said...

Actually, I am not and never have been banned from AN, and consider blez a friendly acquaintance... using what the poster believes is my real name, "outing me," as it were, is a form of stalking and the nastiest kind of on-line harassment. I would expect you to remove the post and bad the poster, Marine Layer.

jrbh said...

"ban" the poster, I meant, of course.

I am aware that Fosse and Kuiper work for the A's, by the way. But KICU and KTVU are responsible for what they say on the air -- they'd pay the fines if Fosse dropped the f-bomb on the air, for example -- and having the pair alientate the KICU and KTVU core audiences is probably not what the stations are hoping for.

Marine Layer said...

Your aversion to being "outed" has been noted, jrbh. The offensive comment has been deleted. I can't ban anyone that posts anonymously or under an unregistered alias, however. I don't censor or ban for profanity, so don't expect me to start now. I have better things to do.

I'm certain that KICU/KTVU have received a fair number of complaints regarding the broadcasters' comments. I seriously doubt it will rise to the level of an uproar. I welcome being proven wrong on that count.

jrbh said...

The thing that bugged me was the use of my name, not profanity or anything else the guy said. I appreciate you stepping in.

jrbh said...

What bugged me wasn't the guy's opinion, such as it was, or his choice of words, or even the bizarrely personal nature of it, but that he used my name. I appreciate you stepping in to put a stop to it.

I don't think I objected to any profanity; if I did, I'd be a terrible hypocrite because I swear all the time.

I sent in my letter to KTVU/KICU right after the Kuiper/Fosse comments, which were now several days ago. No reply yet.

jrbh said...

It wasn't the guy's choice of words, or his attitude, that bugged me, it was the use of my name. That's it. I appreciate you removing the post.

Georob said...

Well JRBH, there IS such a thing as freedom of speech and it would seem that KICU was just exercising theirs. Now, if they're using out and out profanity or slander then they need to be held accountable.

This is hardly the case.

You can do two things: Focus your letter writing on the advertisers and/or stop watching the stations entirely. Otherwise, the so-called chuckleheads probably got just that out of your complaint: a chuckle.

As for you being "banned" from AN, I'll testify that it's not true. However, I DO remember Blez very frustrated that you often wanted to talk politics. While I know that he misses your input, he wasn't going to put up the headaches much longer.

I also remember seeing your real name quite regularly on AN, including a very lively discussion about whether there was a bias against people with hyphenated last names.

But whether it be stadiums, season tickets, or real names, it would appear that you choose to become angry and indignant whenever it suits your purpose. And I think that purpose is the need for attention. Congratulations, it's worked.

Anonymous said...

Wheres the outrage????
Aside from a few people, about twentyfive in number, there is no outrage, as most everyone else aside from the 25 brave naysayers living in their OAFC fantasyland actually WANT Fremont to happen

Anonymous said...

JHRB, there is no uproar, simply because most of us, aside from your tiny little OAFC crowd actually want Fremont to happen.

Repeat after me...."30 Mile Move within the same geographical area does NOT equal a move across the country or into a completely new region:

tin403 said...

I wasn't able to see the game. I heard it was fun. Now reading your blog, I could see why.

jrbh said...

It's hard to see what criticizing KICU's announcers has to do with freedom of speech. The government isn't involved, so it isn't germane.

georob, if you were at AN at the time, you also remember that cyber stalking became a huge issue; I was one of a couple of victims of it. It was seriously frustrating and was the main reason I left AN, the other reason being ad hominem attacks like the one you just made, saying I get angry strategically.

If you've got anything smart to say, something that isn't personal, hey, say it. Anything else is a waste of my time and yours.

Georob said...

Well, I guess you can chalk this all up to this "unchartered waters" of the blogosphere. Unlike traditional media, blogs don't have editors to filter out material, unless the administrator chooses to do so; which is rare.

The upside of this is the enormous freedom we have to post any item or point of view with an immediate impact. On the other hand, any one of us can literally make up stuff off the top of our heads. Problem is, unless no one steps forward to "shout down" that poster, that point of view has been given credibility, right or wrong.

What makes this worse in our stadium discussions is that so much of this topic is based on speculation. We really don't know what's going on inside the mind of Lew Wolff, Bud Selig, and the other MLB owners. And when any of these folk make a public statement, too many on this board choose not to believe it because "they're lying through their teeth."

Which makes it very difficult to register an opposing view. Because for every five reasons I might give why I think Lew Wolff is telling the truth, someone invariably comes up with fifteen more saying why not. After awhile, it causes one to to question what is and isn't real around here.

Therefore, the only weapon that's often left is to question the credibility of the poster. And yes, that unfortunately can mean getting personal. But this is nothing new, as the phrase "attacking the messenger" has been around long before the internet.

But is it "stalking"? It might just depend on the person who thinks he's the victim. In the meantime, various courts have ruled various ways on this topic, and the "jury's still out"

For now though, I'd be careful about making that accusation. In many ways, it's the equivalent of a beautiful woman claiming sexual harassment because a gentleman smiles at her.

jrbh said...

What happened on AN was stalking by any reasonable definition. The guy systematically tracked down my posts, responded to each of them in a personal, vitriolic fashion, and published personal information about me. It's *not* the same as being physically stalked, thankfully, but it's not real fun, either.