News: San Jose Mercury News (Thursday, 4/9/09)

To the point and accurate. Nice job from the Merc.

 

Something else has changed since the original Quakes stadium deal. Wolff now is looking seriously at building a ballpark for the A's in downtown San Jose, if Major League Baseball agrees to the relocation. On Tuesday night, Mayor Chuck Reed and the City Council expressed unanimous support for the idea. If Wolff can fast-track the soccer stadium — a perfect stimulus project with good construction jobs — it will add to the goodwill he'll need when the baseball plan goes to a public vote.


Way to go Lew! This is one way to get the A's to SJ!....He also saves 43 million from Coleman an 40 mil at FMC.....80 million dollars savings....time to buy KAKA! LOL!

 

Yes, I think the editorial is right on this time. As Quakes fan, certainly I want to see a new stadium soon and we can bring up the field size and box goals argument in every thread. At the same time, as a resident in the Bay Area, hopefully the stadium project(s) will bring jobs and other opportunities, something we need in such time.

 

If the A's get a stadium and move to San Jose, would someone take to calling them "The Oakland A's of San Jose", ala the Anahiem Angles? j/w

 

How about Silicon Valley A's?

I was mostly only kidding but we definitely need 1-2 newer players from across the pond or South America...especially since their seasons are coming to a close.....maybe not big name big money DP's but a few good first division players.....

 

I was kidding, too. (about the TOASJ's)

 

Implying that he'll be asking for public funds? Good way to throw away goodwill.

 

San Jose Bees

-Not kidding.

 

I guess I'm missing something here... I definitely see the $43M savings from the editorial, but what's the other $40M at FMC?

Also, my guess is that most of the savings will go directly towards stadium construction (or reducing the amount of financing needed). I'm sure traditional financing mechanisms for commercial construction isn't readily available yet...

 

Not really. A vote will be required for the baseball stadium with or without public funds according to councilman Liccardo. Apparently they feel the scale of the project is just too big to avoid one even if it's privately financed.

 

Overall not a bad editorial. I agree that the Quakes stadium could generate goodwill in the community for a later A's stadium. And I agree the sooner they build it the better and interesting that there might be economic incentives for it to be built in the next 3 years (2012 opening anyone? ). And great taht the editorial mentions one of the key pluses of the project for the city, the relief of the 7.8 million annual the city has been wasting on FMC.

But hopefully people don't just see the Quakes stadium as just a means of garnering goodwill but see it for what it is, a great addition to our community in and of itself regardless of how the A's stadium pans out.

 

So then what the hell is being decided by a vote?

 

I agree (and I thought this was a GREAT editorial; very refreshing to read!).

But I will say that I think there's a danger in linking the Quakes and A's stadiums in the public mind. I didn't know there could be a vote on the A's stadium, even if it won't involve public funding. I remember when the Giants stadium was being built in San Francisco; there was a vote on that, even though the only money the city needed to spend was on infrastructure surrounding the stadium.

I shudder to think what might happen if the A's lose a vote before the groundbreaking ceremony at the Quakes stadium. JUST BUILD THE DAMN THING, ALREADY!

 

If public funds are involved, IF public funds can be used. If it's private, probably IF the citizens of the city want it at all.

 

You've voiced what I've quietly been fearing since the A's eyes came south last month. If the A's get derailed before we have shovels in the ground I seriously worry that it could derail ours as well. Lew's goodwill toward the southbay could evaporate in a heartbeat and our team could once again be up in air as would the A's. If you believe the pundits the failure of the A's to get a stadium in the region soon could cause Lew to at minimum sell his stake in the A's, by choice or otherwise if not the whole ownership group. And it doesn't take a genius to assume the same gents might divest themselves of the Quakes at that point too.

Here's hoping that the independence the two FO's have to an extent maintains remains if the A's fail in their stadium bid so that ours goes through, but here's hoping as insurance we've got shovels in the ground by the time the A's stadium is decided yea or nea (and I think the city may be thinking the same thing if the editorial is correct and there are economic incentives for Lew to build the soccer stadium sooner rather than later since the A's stadium will likely take years to flush out with votes etc...).

 

That's a very odd approach to capitalism. This seems more like a poll than a vote. Ironically, it would cost public funds just to gather this market data.

 

Well I don't think it's just a poll, I think it's a referendum on what is a massive project that undoubtedly will have a huge impact on downtown, the neighborhoods adjoining it, will cause a road or two to be rerouted, etc...

I think the reason we avoided that with the Quakes stadium is due to how much smaller the project is overall. No roads are being rerouted, there are no real neighbors, it isn't right in the heart of downtown even if it's close, etc...

 

Of course there's a major impact. What we've heard all along, though, is that they'd like to get things done without a vote. Now they'd accomplish that (via private funding) and do the vote anyway? Obviously, the vote would look a bit different with the circumstances changed, but it's still kinda strange to me.

 

I think it has to do with the land. The city has been buying up the land for the stadium site for years, and I don't think the A's would intend to buy it. So if the city lets them use the land, that counts as a taxpayer subsidy and would trigger a vote.

 

It's odd to be sure. But I think the dynamic of the vote would be quite different. All the polls I've seen show good support for an A's stadium (70%+) if it's privately financed. If it's publicly financed you can bet that number will likely drop below 50% like a falling knife.

 

The vote will be on the stadium size, the roof, A's uniform color and kinds of beer and nachos offered.