I kept wondering why it’s taking so long for Major League Baseball to make a decision on whether or not to let the A’s move to San Jose. It’s a big and expensive decision, but one that could have been made months ago. I assumed that the source of the delay was rounding up the money to compensate the SF Giants ownership for the territorial rights to Santa Clara County. Unfortunately for San Jose, there may be another reason for the delay.
In the May 8 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, sports columnist Bruce Jenkins wrote the following: “More than a year has passed since Selig appointed a task force to recommend a stadium solution in the Bay Area, prompting speculation that he would happily wait until sometime next year, when negotiations begin on a collective bargaining agreement. That way, the thinking goes, Selig could use the threat of eliminating two franchises-Oakland and Tampa Bay- as leverage in talks with the players’ union…The Los Angeles Times went as far as to ask, in a recent column, ‘Is Bud Selig trying to kill the Oakland Athletics?’”
Commissioner Selig made his fortune through car dealerships. Car dealers are usually pretty good negotiators. That shinny new green and yellow sports car that we all have our eyes on right now, just might not be up for sale after all.
A mere 12,000 fans were on hand in Oakland on Mother’s Day to witness Dallas Braden’s perfect game. MLB can’t be overly impressed with Oakland but San Jose isn’t exactly baseballtown USA either and it’s becoming less and less so each passing year as our demographics shift.
Who would the San Jose A’s be for? A dwindling white minority? Seems kind of racist to devote valuable City resources to the benefit of one specific race.
JG,
Just plain appalling! When did baseball become a game for just the “white minority”? Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there are a lot of “Suzuki’s” and “Chavez’s” playing alongside the “Braden’s” and “Barton’s” of MLB. Our National Pastime belongs to everyone JG!
As for PC’s post, simple answer: NO! MLB isn’t playing SJ, and NO the A’s won’t be contracted (or even threatened with contraction). Bud Selig and Lew Wolff are old frat buddy’s from the U of Wisconsin. Selig personally asked Wolff back in 02 if he wanted to buy the A’s. Why would he stab his old friend in the back as you suggest?
Without getting into to much detail, I believe a decision has already been made re: the A’s to SJ. It just hasn’t been made public yet (See MLB official Bob Dupuy/Lew Wolff having lunch with Mayor Reed and the continued acquisitions of land at Diridon).
Only white people watch baseball? Do you have a source for that?
How about hockey? Now there’s a sport with a reputation for a diverse audience. And since the Sharks are struggling to fill HP Pavilion, clearly the A’s would have problems here as well.
> How about hockey? Now there’s a sport with a reputation for a diverse audience. And since the Sharks are struggling to fill HP Pavilion, clearly the A’s would have problems here as well.
Dear Sharks-Questioner:
I think you’ve been spending too much time looking out of the rear window of your 1952 Studebaker.
A. The Sharks are not stuggling to fill HP Pavilion. Almost every home game this season (and as far as I know, EVERY home game) has been a sell out.
B. And, in fact, the Sharks audience and fan base is HIGHLY diverse.
If you want to see the future of hockey in San Jose, visit Sharks Ice in San Jose and notice the beehive of activity, EVEN IN A DOWN ECONOMY!
The San Jose area is the NUMBER ONE area of amateur hockey participation in the U.S. as measured by USAHockey membership. Over 120 amateur hockey teams (comprising over 3,000 players) play regularly in leagues at Sharks Ice in San Jose.
And for those who like to obsess on counting ethnic noses, the amateur hockey participants at Sharks ICE
DO broadly represent the ethnic composition of San Jose. In fact, if the ethnicity-obsessives (for whatever reason) actually WANTED to prove to themselves how diverse amateur hockey is, they could put together amateur teams for fifteen or twenty different ethnic communities.
Sharks player Manny Malhotra was trying to make a joke when he expressed his disappointment that Team India didn’t do well at the Olympics. But there IS a Team India, ranked 70th in world hockey!
http://nationalteamsoficehockey.com/
Amateur hockey players skating at Sharks Ice today will probably contribute to the talent pool that will enable Team India to leap ahead of other amateur national hockey teams, like:
69. Team Liechtenstein
68. Team Algeria
67. Team Bahrain
66. “The Balkan Falcons” (Team Bosnia & Herzegovina)
65. Team Macao
Ice hockey is a world-wide phenomenon. The dominant professional league in the U.S. is, in fact, an international league with participating teams from two countries and players from twenty countries. Participation from additional countries or fusion with other leagues is always a possiblity.
Ice hockey is NOT constrained by geography or ethnicity, and as the Olympics showed, not by gender. It is, similar to soccer, inherently international and cross-cultural. Those who haven’t noticed this, might want to broaden their awareness.
Bang for the Buck,
I apologize for being too subtle with my sarcasm. Thanks for all the stats, though.
“Racist?” Surely there are baseball fans who aren’t White, and even if somehow there were not, that would simply be due to the vagaries of freedom of choice. Its hardly “racist” to have an institution that might be, perhaps, primarily enjoyed by White folks.
I remember back around ‘99, I think it was, when Blanca Alvarado claimed that Reed-Hillview Airport primarily served the interest of White males (since they are the ones most likely to have their own planes), that it was somehow racist to be against closing that facility. If you’ll forgive me for saying, that was pretty stupid too.
In any event, maybe its only Mexicans-in-Mexico who enjoy baseball, and Mexican-Americans almost never do…but I doubt it. If anything, baseball is declining in popularity across the (racial) board. Either way, I don’t suppose this stadium can be built without municipal funding, ergo I hope it is never built. We have more pressing fiscal needs.
Oh good…we get to talk about race relations again!
Seems race is the subtext of every issue of the day. This group really does have a one track mind.
Pete and Amazing are right. Instead of fanning the flames we need to kill this now. Galt, the only way you could make a comment that stupid is if your intention was hijack this discussion. The technical term is being a “troll.”
I will no longer take your bait.
It ain’t just this group. It often seems the clear majority of U.S. socio-political blogs & message boards have a definite tendency to get side-tracked with respect to these particular issues. Perhaps in part because people are often uncomfortable discussing such topics in real life, outside of a few trusted friends & relations?
It would be nice if there didn’t exist any issues where if one briefly slips, and expresses the “wrong” opinion, even if followed by a swift and contrite recantation, one runs the risk of permanent damage to their career, reputation, friendships, etc. But those are, in fact, the conditions which prevail with respect to this particular cluster of issues, and until that sad fact changes, people in the semi-anonymous environment of the internet will doubtless talk about this particular set of issues one Hell of a lot more than they seem to do in real life.
Kevin makes some good points, but I can’t help but wonder if there is not some sort of organized effort to inject the issues or race and illegal immigration into virtually every conversation.
We see race and immigration mentioned in the readers comments of just about every Mercury News article these days, no matter what the topic, just as Galt introduced race into a discussion of baseball stadiums.
These issues deserve to be fully discussed on their own merits, but so does the ballpark issue. I understand Pete’s frustration at how quickly his ballpark discussion got hijacked.
I question the motivation of people who inject race into every discussion. Most would likely say that they are patriots, but I suspect the great majority are closet bigots who feel empowered by the current debate over immigration. Or so it would seem.
> I question the motivation of people who inject race into every discussion.
Good, Reader! Then you must question the motivation of the entire Democrat Party which is almost entirely based on injecting race into every discussion and issue.
Just be sure to stay up there on your high horse the next time DiSalvo starts droning on about the “achievement gap”. Call HIM on HIS bullshit.
Whereas John Galt has no power and was merely being ironic, Joe is dead serious and actually holds elected office.
> Oh good…we get to talk about race relations again!
Well, get used to it, Pete. It ain’t going to change.
The dominant political ethic in the bay area is based on the principal of acquiring and accumulating power for a morally self-validating oligarchy. The oligarchy wants to make as many people as possible perceive themselves as powerless victims so that they will become willing clients of the oligarchy’s tax funded “programs”.
The historical tried and true way of making a large number of people feel like powerless victims is to tell them that “other people” hate them “because of the color of their skin”. Works every time.
There is a simple, well-established principle of human behavior:
“Successful behavior is repeated.”
Telling people over and over that they are victims or “racism” has been a successful behavior for the oligarchy, and they will continue doing the same thing until it stops working for them, which is likely to be “never”.
Bottom line: we will all get the chance to talk about “race relations” again, and again, and again.
A better question is whether people need to pay taxes to subsidize professional sports of any kind.
I don’t really care if it is soccer, baseball, hockey, or football. They’re all fun to watch, but none of them need public money. (Or public land, or favorable rezoning, or loan guarantees, or any of that.)
If people really want to watch, then a private company will have no trouble building their own stadium. You don’t need the city to be involved at all.
Repeat after me Greg very slowly: THE PROPOSED A’S BALLPARK WILL BE PRIVATELY FINANCED! That means you or I won’t pay for it. And the city will LEASE the Diridon plot to the A’s/Lew Wolff (not known at this time whether it will be a market or below-market land lease rate; below-market rate would require a voter referendum). This would be no different than the city leasing city land to, say, a residental builder or high-tech company for private development. Of course, such “land leases for private developers” have happened many times over the course of our Valley’s history. It just doesn’t make the news or cause “controversy” because they haven’t involved major league sports. Lastly Greg, are you suggesting the city shouldn’t have gotten involved in the building of HP Pavilion?
Tony- Going ad-hominem, old friend?
You don’t need to type slowly, or use all caps. It’s insulting. I’m more than capable of seeing a public subsidy, even in disguise.
Favorable rezoning is just as valuable as cash. The same goes for a below market lease of public land. Either one is still a subsidy.
The HP Pavilion was another example of a subsidy, as was Zanottos, and the repeated attempts to subsidize downtown retail and movie theaters.
Favorable zoning may be as valuable as cash, but the city doesn’t have to float a bond measure to cover the (imaginary) costs of altering the dictates of its zoning ordinances. I don’t mind some business venture getting help from the City Council, so long as we’re not paying to render that assistance (and so long as the entities being assisted are likely to be valuable additions to the community, of course).
Now Kevin’s post is something to yell AHHH-men to! (I’m Roman Catholic). Weren’t subsidies also used for Brocade in North San Jose, Adobe in downtown San Jose? Heck, I bet Cisco has gotten a subsidy every now and then. Could you imagine what kind of city San Jose would be with Greg in charge? (Oh the horror!)
yes, San Jose has a very large RDA, which takes money from the schools and gives it to corporations and very wealthy individuals. When the city gives another million dollars to subsidize Zanottos, that money came from schools statewide. (statewide because of how the state redistributes education dollars)
Kevin’s comment is sharper. Favorable rezoning is definitely cheaper than other subsidies.
It’s not as free as it looks, though. Cities have plenty of leverage to ask for public benefits when land is rezoned for a specific developer. You can get public parks and roads improvements to handle the added people, if you tie it to project approval.
That’s also the opportunity cost when you rezone to subsidize a sports team. You’re getting the full burden of the rezoning, but you’re not getting the public parks and road improvements that ought to go with it.
A business is a business, and whether it’s a factory or a sports team it brings jobs and tax revenue. Cities provide subsidies to attract businesses all the time. And in this case, the team IS building their own stadium. The city is only buying land for them to build on with RDA funds that can’t be used for anything other than RDA projects.
> If people really want to watch, then a private company will have no trouble building their own stadium. You don’t need the city to be involved at all.
AAAAA-Men
And for the Roman Catholics out there,
AHHHH-Men
Don’t get me wrong. I love baseball and it’d be cool to have a major league team in my hometown. But I’ll alway be against it being subsidized by the City. If it’s a viable business venture then let the businessmen bear the risk. If Tony D’s wrong, however, and it shows up on the ballot, I’ll be voting against.
So I looked at this thing from a cynical ethnic perspective. So what. You don’t want to follow that line of discussion then don’t. It’s no skin off my nose. Anyway, it’s completely irrelevant as long as public dollars are kept out of it. But there’s a gigantic percentage of population in this City to whom MLB (and most other American traditions) is of absolutely zero interest- and to me that’s a shame but it’s a reality that we should not ignore. Try asking the chamois guy at Robertsville Carwash as he’s finishing off your shiny Lexus how he likes the Sharks chances against the Blachhawks. See what your Vietnamese gardener thinks about Lincecum’s changeup. Ask your turban-clad mailman why the Giants seem to have so much trouble with the Padres. These will be very short conversations! And you want these people to give up their hardearned dollars to pay for your entertainment? The City-subsidized San Jose A’s will be just another institution that divides us- that reminds us just how little in common we have with our neighbors. Our neighbors who, I might add, are being forced to subsidize our extravagance.
But most readers here object to this line of discussion so I’ll cease and address Pete’s point a little more directly;
Maybe Selig is exploring ways to even out the 2 leagues. There are 16 teams in the NL and only 14 teams in the AL. The AL West has only 4 teams and it seems more than a litle unfair to teams in the NL Central which has 6 teams and hence are statistically less likely to win their division. Maybe the whole deal is being complicated by an effort to transfer one AL team to the NL?
While I’m at it though, I’ll play the heretic and challenge the supposedly unassailable notion that the Arena and the Sharks have been a benefit to the city. To the average San Josean who’s never attended a game and doesn’t own a bar or restaurant near the arena nor a parking or souvenir concession, what proof is there that the arena has made the city a better place? Is downtown now a vibrant, bustling metropolis? Is the adjacent Guadalupe River Park now free of debris and homeless encampments? Is the City now swimming in excess tax revenue? What? I fail to buy the Bravo Sierra.
> While I’m at it though, I’ll play the heretic and challenge the supposedly unassailable notion that the Arena and the Sharks have been a benefit to the city. To the average San Josean who’s never attended a game and doesn’t own a bar or restaurant near the arena nor a parking or souvenir concession, what proof is there that the arena has made the city a better place?
Without passing judgement on whether or not public subsidies for the Arena and the Sharks are desirable or justified, I would simply like to report that the Sharks, in conjuction with the Arena, seem to be generating a meaningful amount of “drag-along” business activity.
Because the Arena exists, there has been a substantial program of direct and indirect revenue-generating events: NCAA basketball tournaments, marquee entertainers, ice shows, arena football (currently inactive), MMA, etc.
The Sharks practice facility (Sharks Ice) with four ice sheets has stimulated explosive growth in amateur hockey in the South Bay, and the amount of consumer spending on league fees and ice time is substantial. The South Bay also is the center of a serious figure skating community. World class figure skaters train, and offer training at, Sharks Ice. And additional ice sports such as curling, recreational skating, broom ball, and sled hockey also provide revenue generating demand for ice time, and supporting services.
Sharks Ice is one of the best indoor ice facilities west of the Mississippi and south of the Canadian border. It is one of the few facilities capable of hosting major, national or world class events. And as such it has a full schedule of hockey tournaments, and ice skating competitions booked throughout the year. Throughout the college hockey season, Sharks Ice is venue to NCAA hockey games and tournments. It is the home rink for the SJSU and Santa Clara University hockey clubs, and Pac Ten clubs including Stanford, Cal, USC, and others play there at times during the season.
[Inexplicably, the college hockey games involving major bay area university programs that are played at Sharks Ice are NEVER reported in the Mercury News or in the local sports media. Go figure.]
In addition to NHL hockey, and NCAA basketball, the San Jose Arena will also be the venue for the 2012 National Figure Skating Championships.
Bottom line, I think it is beyond question that the combination of the Arena, the Sharks franchise, and the Sharks Ice practice facility have generated a very substantial amount of economic activity for San Jose.
In my opinion, at least 90 percent of the credit for the business success of the Sharks and the Arena goes to the management group that owns the Sharks franchise and manages the Arena.
Whether the success story would have occurred with or without public subsidies, I will leave for others to discuss and debate.
Despite it’s small size, I’d like to toss out another fact for the 100% publicly funded Arena:
“It hosts an average of 190 events a year, including many non-sporting events. In 2006, the HP Pavilion sold the most tickets to non-sporting events of any venue in the Western United States, and the fourth highest total in the world, after Madison Square Garden in New York City, the Manchester Evening News Arena in Manchester, and the Air Canada Centre in Toronto.”
The A’s deal is hung up because they can’t raise money to make it happen in bad economy for losing stadium
– IStar and downtown high rise residential profits from industrial / retail rezonings are not available until housing development profits recovers- 3-7 + years
– Commercial / retail development and low attendance sports teams can’t get financing because banks won’t lend during high vacancy rates when most commercial property has to be refinanced and banks don’t want take loss it will be 3-10 years before commercial / retail property rebounds
– A’s team owners who are local developers see years of slow economy, distressed commercial property bargains at low prices and don’t want to throw good money at bad project in San Jose’s money losing high commercial vacancy downtown and few residents without millions tax subsidies which will not happen with city having budget deficit and layoffs
5-8 years or more before A’s move unless new owner buys team to move to non California city with tax subsidies
Enjoy local San Jose Giants baseball because that is only baseball team we will for years
Didn’t realize this recession was going to last forever (sarcasm!). Psss…the economy is improving, but don’t say that to loud because it would render posts like the above ridiculous. You must be a die-hard SF/SJ Giants fan to have come up with all that crap. By the way, how did the Giants privately-finance AT&T Park without the backing of a commercial/retail/residential development?
I think you should plan a field trip and go to Downtown San Jose before and after a Sharks game. Then tell me there is no impact.