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):