Responses to Reed’s Baseball Gambit

As expected, there was much written about San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed’s gambit to force the Baseball Commissioner’s hand on the A’s move to San Jose. SF Chronicle sportswriter Scott Ostler led with the headline, “Mayor Gives Selig An Old-Time Hotfoot.”

Reed was done waiting for Commissioner Selig’s three-man committee to show a pulse…Reed said he wanted to ‘light a fire’ under Selig. … When Reed’s end-around scheme hit the news, Selig blasted Reed’s proposal as ‘premature’...and then Selig announced that he would meet with his committee the following Monday.

Ostler called Reed, “Arsonist of the Year.” (Is that a good thing?)

The Mercury News gave the mayor’s efforts a neutral grade, publishing a “sideways mark” in their “Who’s Up And Down” review in the Sunday Internal Affairs column. The Mercury wrote:

Whether by accident or design, Reed’s on-again, off-again vow to put a downtown baseball stadium to a public vote got Major League officials to commit to some sort of timetable to decide the A’s future.

Curiously, the non-sportswriters at the Chron were not as charitable to San Jose’s mayor. The editorial board listed Chuck Reed as someone who had a “Bad Week.”

San Jose mayor is going to have to wait a little longer to lure the A’s from Oakland. He bows to MLB’s demand to pull a November ballot measure.

How’s that a bad week if one year from now the territorial rights issue is resolved and the A’s are allowed to move to the South Bay?

Finally, there’s this from Merc columnist Scott Herhold, who wrote a column on the stadium issue.

[The ballpark] would do much for San Jose’s sometimes-beleaguered identity. 

After I read that sentence, it occurred to me….it seems that the only people who express concerns about San Jose’s “identity,” are Redevelopment Agency officials trying to get funding for a project, developers trying to win a public subsidy, or employees of the Mercury News!  Seriously, I never hear anyone outside of these three groups complaining about our city’s identity.

30 Comments

  1. Do you write a sports column?

    It seems you have this entire baseball saga figured out. 

    Now, can you tell us just what you figured out, since we are all just silly people who do not know the nuances of local government like you do.

    I am not sure what elected position or major payroll you ever met, but you sure seem so convinced you know more.

    Enlighten us.

    • TO SAN JOSE INSIDE READERS:
      This first response, signed by “Steve Maryk” was designed to deflect attention from the message of the short article.  Very likely, it was submitted by Democratic Central Committee Member James Rowen.

      I invite everyone to review Rowen’s Mission City Lantern blog.  It’s quite stunning.  Recently, Rowen wrote the following:  “(Larry) Pegram forms super gang of Chuck Reed, Pete Campbell, and Victor Ajlouny of intolerance and bigotry.”

      This is an example of the “stuff” that a current member of the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee puts out into the public domain.  I invite any and all members of the Central Committee to voice their support or opposition to this.

  2. Pete,

    Yes, complaints of SJ’s “beleagured identity” are grossly overstated.  It’s a small crowd indeed – those who use the excuse of putting SJ on the map, when in actuality, it’s all about stuffing their wallets with more money.

  3. Your last paragraph says it all. There’s a gigantic disconnect between the people of San Jose and the people governing San Jose. They govern us without regard to who we are or what we want. That’s why we now have fleets of busses and trains that drive around empty, symphonies and theaters that can’t support themselves, a billion dollar airline terminal that wasn’t needed, and subsidized restaurants downtown that nobody patronizes. Pretty soon, if they have their way we’ll have a sparsely occupied baseball stadium in a city that prefers soccer, ping pong, and cricket.

    • Don’t forget the biggest example of this, a half billion dollar city hall that wasn’t needed and built as a shrine to the prior junta. The ballpark, although not as grand as the city hall, is Mayor Reed’s baby.

    • Funny how you left out the succes that is HP Pavilion out of your “disconnect” post.  That would have destroyed your pathetic “I speak for all San Joseans” rant.  What part of polls showing large majority’s favoring the A’s in San Jose don’t you understand?  What part of new ballparks in big city downtowns being resounding $uccess’ don’t you understand?  Can you say AT&T Park JG?  A sparsely patronized baseball stadium?  A city that prefers soccer, ping pong, and cricket?  WOW!  You need to get outside a little JG (or at least open your damn blinds).  It’s no longer 1950.

  4. > After I read that sentence, it occurred to me….it seems that the only people who express concerns about San Jose’s “identity,” are Redevelopment Agency officials trying to get funding for a project, developers trying to win a public subsidy, or employees of the Mercury News!  Seriously, I never hear anyone outside of these three groups complaining about our city’s identity.

    Hmmmmm.

    You know, YOU’RE RIGHT!!

    But I can understand why the Mercury News would have identity problems:  low self-esteem.

    Would you be able to live with yourself if you had to make up fibs every day and were forced to call the majority of California voters homophobic bigots?

    • Hope you feel better now. You’ve taken your shots at the Merc and offered nothing of substance to backup your tirade. As for “homophobic bigots”—nothing inaccurate about that although, of course, they never said anything of the kind. They did report on the 140+ page legal opinion from a Federal judge. You might not like the facts that are reported but that doesn’t make them “fibs.”

      • > As for “homophobic bigots”—nothing inaccurate about that although, of course, they never said anything of the kind.

        Amber:

        See if you can salvage a copy of today’s Murky News from one or your favorite dumpsters and turn to page A8:

        “Editorial:  Facts triumph over bigotry on Prop. 8 ruling”

        Sounds to me like they’re calling SOMEBODY a bigot.

        • > Facts are facts. Also, there is a big difference between an editorial and a news story. You failed to make that distinction in your attack.

          So, you’re saying that Murky News editorials are unrelated to facts and should be ignored?

          I always suspected that was the case.

      • > You’ve taken your shots at the Merc and offered nothing of substance to backup your tirade.

        Amber Grease:

        Did you know that just about everything that the Murk has printed about “global warming” is a fib?

        There is no “scientific consenses” that human activity is causing global warming.

        No Pacific island nations have been abandoned because of rising sea levels.

        The sea level is NOT going to rise twenty feet in the next hundred years.

        Global warming is NOT causing the extinction of polar bears.

        No one told you?

  5. Bronco,

    When reading the Murky-News, one must stick to the syndicated articles provided from real news sources.  Even with those articles, the Murk is still best used as fish wrap.

  6. Good posting and it touches on some great topics.

    Got back from a road trip through the Northwest and checked out both Portland and Vancouver.  Like SF, they are great cities, but I’m glad I don’t live there.  There’s things about these places I like, and the folks often play on this when they “sell” us the next project or vision.

    Bottom line is that this is all a business with people, even city workers, becoming relatively wealthy pushing big ticket development projects.  The vision for downtown has morphed, but basically the real estate and developer interests make their money and move on, they aren’t really interested in actual success.  Baseball is a business (a monopolistic racket with all sorts of exemptions from normal laws that apply to other businesses.) The stadium is the latest “must have” secret ingredient to finally make downtown in a vital place. 

    Bottom line is it’ll cost a lot of money and even using tax increment financing and redevelopment bonds just for land deals, we’re using our tax dollars (which are limited) on another corporate welfare project.  Maybe it’ll pay off with multiplier impacts, bringing other economic activity with it.  Maybe.  Is there another project or vision that offers the same potential?

    Why do the schemers and planners always try to sell us something we don’t have rather than playing to our strengths.  The flea market is kitschy, but has been doing well for 30-40 years and represents vital economic activity.  Soccer has been doing okay.  Swap meets, flea markets and the rest are popular.  Sometimes it makes sense to give people what they want (a WalMart) rather than what you want them to want (Nordstroms and other overpriced retail.)

    Seems like A LOT of redevelopment has been aimed at the richest 20% of the city and the rest of us are just supposed to feel honored to be a part of the grand vision and maybe get a lousy paying service job to support the rich liberal utopia.

    In return for the subsidies and public help, why don’t city officials and policians ask for more than just campaign contributions?  I’m thinking we make them offer a fixed number of “San Jose resident” discount tickets for every event.  And for an outdoor venue like a stadium, let’s have them repay the subsidy in part by being required to host a 4th of July Fireworks Show every year.  And how about letting the city or local non-profits rent the facility when it doesn’t conflict with team events for cut rate prices?  Festivals and Events could be encouraged at the new venue that would attract people who don’t really get any value out of a sports venue.

  7. Blair,

    Regarding discounted event tickets and a 4th of July fireworks show, it sounds like you’re describing Mountain View’s Shoreline. 

    Ahh, but then Mountain View doesn’t have a $3 billion downtown, sterile and frequently empty.  Neither does Mountain View have a Gonzo-Dome attached to a half-billion dollar monument to stupidity.  I guess, as residents, we can’t have everything!

  8. Blair

    Thanks for seeing how it really is in San Jose and who gets public’s tax money

    ” Bottom line is that this is all a business with people, even city workers, becoming relatively wealthy pushing big ticket development projects.

    The vision for downtown has morphed, but basically the real estate and developer interests make their money and move on, they aren’t really interested in actual success.

    Baseball is a business (a monopolistic racket with all sorts of exemptions from normal laws that apply to other businesses.) The stadium is the latest “must have” secret ingredient to finally make downtown in a vital place.  “

    All the special interests use city taxes as piggy bank to enrich themselves or as political paybacks from their elected special interest representatives

    Name (1) one Council member who really represents residents, neighborhoods, taxpayers and who votes for public good not more profits or our taxes for another special interests project or subsidy:

    – excessive city labor pay and pensions,
    – public construction projects for construction trades,
    – developer or corporate subsidies that don’t pay back taxes spent in your lifetime,
    – rezoning industrial to residential lands profits, tens millions in sports subsidies
    – more downtown association ( for 20 years SJDA Executive Director on RDA payroll but few knew or told public )and property owner subsidies

    while residents get little city services for taxes paid

  9. On the subject of baseball…

    Anyone have the misfortune of suffering through Madison Nguyen’s prerecorded rambling screech prior to San Jose Giants games?

    How do you say “Make it stop.  For God’s sake make it stop.” in Vietnamese?

  10. How many times must it be stated?  THE BALLPARK WILL BE PRIVATELY FINANCED!  In laymans terms, that means Lew Wolff/A’s will pay for the construction of the ballpark; not you or I!  I know, I know; but what about the land acquistions and road improvements.  Guess what Sherlock!  Those will happen regardless of ballpark or no ballpark, and that’s exactly what RDA funds are supposed to be spent on.  RDA funds can’t be used to fund city services.  And San Jose will lease the Diridon plot to the A’s; it won’t be free or a corporate handout!  But of course, many of you “Happy Days” posters will (like always) close your eyes and cover your ears to this uncomfortable truth because it destroys your arguments against the downtown ballpark. Oh well.

    • It doesn’t matter how many times you say it.  If it’s not true, it’s not true.

      Things that are privately financed pay for their own road improvements and land acquisition.  As soon as the city/RDA starts picking up the tab, that’s a subsidy.

      And yes, the RDA is all about subsidies.  This is a good reason to get rid of all RDAs.

      • And you know damn well that Lew Wolffe will manage to understate his costs. Halfway through the construction of the stadium, it will come out that additional costs must be paid. Wolffe will claim poverty and city taxpayers will be forced to pick up the tab.

      • Greg,
        What part of “Lew Wolff/A’s will lease the Diridon plot” didn’t you understand?  What part of “Autumn Parkway construction project happening even without a ballpark” didn’t you understand?  So go ahead Greg, call RDA infrastructure/land acquisitions a “subsidy” for Wolff if it makes you happy.  But it’s this same type of “subsidy” that built this city/Silicon Valley.  Think about all the high-tech company’s, home builders, and retail corporations that relied on “subsidies” for road and infrastructure improvements, including setting up shop on city-owned land!  Without the RDA: San Jose would still be known as the “Prune Capitol of the World,” but based on many of the posts here, perhaps that’s what some want?  Oh well.

    • > I know, I know; but what about the land acquistions and road improvements.  Guess what Sherlock!  Those will happen regardless of ballpark or no ballpark, and that’s exactly what RDA funds are supposed to be spent on.

      Tony D-student:

      Sounds like the RDA has too much money to spend.

      And, by the way, the RDA didn’t just find its money under a cabbage leaf.

    • Tony D, I’ll say it again. If you believe that the ballpark will be privately financed with no public subsidy, I’ve got a bridge I can sell you. When did Wolff ever do anything without a public handout—oops, subsidy? Hey what if those roads led to something real, like a movie production studio that would employs hundreds of electricians, carpenters, set designers, actors, digital technicians—for years, every day. How about that for that land? The only production and post-production facility in northern CA is in the city (the real city). Maybe the city council needs to get serious about real redevelopment not fattening up baseball wallets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *