19 February 2009


NUMMI chimed in with their opinion about the Warm Springs Alternative.
From the outset, it is hard to imagine how NUMMI could continue to operate with a ballpark immediately adjacent to it. The traffic congestion from a ballpark would seem a sure barrier to on-time delivery of parts needed for production. But the A’s may have some unique idea of how freeway off ramps/onramps could be added/improved, the stadium could be strategically situated, numerous surface streets could be widened, parking could be configured, etc. to avert that result. If that is the case, we would like to see that plan from the beginning of the planning process. The planned ingress/egress and infrastructure improvements or lack thereof could all have tremendous impact on our operations as well as all of the other businesses and residents nearby.
All in all, that's about as diplomatic as NUMMI could and should be about it. They're right to ask, as everyone else is asking, what piece of land the A's intend to use for the ballpark. Even supporters of the plan want the A's to do this, if only to cut down on the rumormongering. What could be interesting is whether or not the UAW will say anything. If NUMMI views the ballpark as a threat to the plant, the UAW will probably side with NUMMI in opposition. Now that's a two front war: NUMMI/UAW literally on one side, angry residents and environmentalists on the other. The residents now think that the cancellation of the 2/24 preso is a stalling tactic done to blunt criticism of the alternative.

Why won't the A's specify? Perhaps instead of explaining, I'll refer you to this wonderful clip from years past (careful, some language NSFW):


Anonymous said...

Yesterday's remarks regarding possible Q & A was not up to par with your imagination...

the A's say they will be paying for it all by themselves but stats from all over USA for all stadiums built don't agree with the A's owner...

Each and every stadium built has needed government funding..

So how is Mr. Wolf going to pull this off?

Marine Layer said...

That's not for you or I to figure out. It's way over our heads. Frankly, as long as the deal passes muster publicly and insulates taxpayers properly, it's all skippy to me. Wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous said...

I just don't get this whole Warm Springs thing at all. Why would Lew even bring that hairball into the picture? It has done nothing but muddy the waters and bring a negative tone to the whole stadium discussion. The PC plan is a good one. He should fish that pond until it's dry. Then move on to the larger one in SJ if necessary.

Jeffrey said...

anon 10:31

inancing: The ballpark is the first privately funded ballpark built for Major League Baseball since Dodger Stadium opened in 1962. No new taxes and no money from San Francisco's general fund were used to build the ballpark. The Giants lease the land on which the ballpark sits from the Port of San Francisco at a fair market value.


Dodger Stadium was baseball�s only privately financed stadium built since Yankee Stadium (1923) and until Pacific Bell Park (2000). Until Denver�s Coors Field was built in 1995, Dodger Stadium and Chicago�s Wrigley Field were the only National League parks built exclusively for baseball. The Los Angeles / California Angels shared Dodger Stadium from April 17, 1962 until September 22, 1965. The stadium was known as Chavez Ravine when the Angels were playing there.

So when you say "each and every" what exactly do you mean?