Click to read the article from cbs5.com

Oakland Supervisor Says A's Move Isn't Done Deal

(BCN) OAKLAND Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente said Tuesday that concerns about chemical issues near the proposed site in Fremont for a new stadium for the Oakland A's shows that the team's plans to move to Fremont aren't guaranteed.

"There's a lot of hype and it's very easy to think that it's a done deal, but there's a long way to go" before the proposed move is finalized, said De La Fuente, who also serves as president of the board that supervises operations at the Oakland Coliseum complex.

He said possible difficulties posed by the location of Scott Specialty Gases, a distributor of highly toxic materials used in semi-conductor manufacturing, across the street from the proposed site where A's owner Lew Wolff wants to build a new stadium are only "one of many obstacles" the team faces.

Addressing traffic issues and the fact that the proposed stadium isn't near a BART station are other important issues, he said.

Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz said that while the potential toxic chemical issue is important and must be resolved, "We don't believe it's a deal breaker."

Diaz said Wolff must either pay to have the company relocated or find a way to mitigate potential problems if it remains in its current location.

Scott Specialty Gases is headquartered in Plumsteadville, Pa., and has its electronic materials group in Fremont.

The company distributes arsine, hydrogen chloride and ammonia.

Fremont's disaster plan says the worst case scenario posed by a potential accident at Scott's facility in Fremont would be a cloud of deadly arsine floating as far as seven-tenths of a mile from the plant, which would include the proposed stadium site.

Diaz said the city is in "standby mode" in its dealings with the A's while it waits for the team to complete its purchase of a 143-acre stadium site from Cisco Systems, which currently owns the land.

The transaction is expected to be completed in a few weeks, he said.

Diaz said the city's role is to serve as both facilitator and regulator for the A's plans to build the stadium.

Oakland A's officials couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday.

Diaz said that under the best-case scenario, the A's could be playing in a new stadium in Fremont in five years.

De La Fuente said, "That's a very optimistic timeline."

The A's current lease at the Oakland Coliseum runs through the 2010 season but it allows the team to break the lease if it moves to another stadium in Alameda County, which would include the Fremont site.

The team also the option of renewing its lease at the coliseum through 2013 through a series of one-year extensions.

Oakland or Freemont? I just opened this article and find it great news for the Bay area that two cities in the East Bay are in somewhat of a battle over the A's. This only solidifies the fact that the owners of the A's never in their wildest dreams considered PDX, Sac-town or Las Vegas as true potential candidates. Expansion is the only way PDX will recieve a MLB team and as I stated some months ago that is 10 to 15 years away (more competition at that time).

Waiting for something from somebody who at one time stated "look South". Sorry, but "look South" was never and will never be the answer. You don't give up Hollywood for the high school drama team.

OK, I'll bite.

I think we all realized about a year ago that MLB2PDX was highly unlikely in the near term. Every single relocation lead went cold, and Selig gave the Potter-esque "not on my watch" response to thoughts of expansion.

Maury's "look South" comment had merit at one time because the A's, after the Expos, were the most likely relocation candidate by every conceivable measure. At the same time, Wolff has always appeared to be an honest broker (Oakland fans may disagree) who wanted to exhaust every possible option in the Bay Area before seriously considering relocation.

So to me, it wasn't a question of PDX/Sac/LV being "better" than Fremont, it was a matter of trying to find a Bay Area solution, and it was reasonable to expect that they may not, given that:

1. Public funding is extremely difficult there;
2. San Jose was impossible for territorial reasons; and
3. Oakland had an adversarial mayor and limited site availability.

Expansion could become possible in 3-5 years but really depends on the circumstances at that time. If it takes 10-15 years as you are saying, then some relocation possibilities could open up around that time as well (Tampa being the obvious one with the lease at the Trop).

Yes you did bite, but realism is what matters.Why would any owner in their right mind give up on the Bay area for somewhere else on the West Coast. Never !!!!! Also, expansion is so far off that the 10-15 year prediction maybe somewhat liberal. Tampa, they are not moving just because of population growth and the relationship being built in that Bay area (and please don't give me game stats on attendance). Once again, PDX is NBA, Lacrosse, MLS and just perhaps the NHL in 5-10 years

quote:

Originally posted by Rockstar:
Yes you did bite, but realism is what matters. Why would any owner in their right mind give up on the Bay area for somewhere else on the West Coast. Never !!!!!

Well I listed three reasons but apparently I wasn't too convincing. If Wolff can make his model work then obviously you are correct, there is no reason for the A's to move. But nobody knew that it would work at the time because it was unprecedented (it still is, considering the title of this thread).

quote:

Also, expansion is so far off that the 10-15 year prediction maybe somewhat liberal.

I think that, beyond 2010, it's impossible to say one way or the other. Heck, even 20-25 years could be too liberal. It just depends on whether a majority (or supermajority, I forget the requirement) feels that the benefits outweigh the costs.

quote:

Tampa, they are not moving just because of population growth and the relationship being built in that Bay area (and please don't give me game stats on attendance).

No stats, just an ugly, revenue draining stadium, an expiring lease, and a state that has become very hesitant to fund new replacement facilities. But hey, maybe the Trop will become retro-chic by then

quote:

Once again, PDX is NBA, Lacrosse, MLS and just perhaps the NHL in 5-10 years

As it stands, I'd say we have maybe a 25% shot at MLB within 10 years. But if media or other revenues stall before then, I think our odds go up considerably. In the meantime, good thing flights to Phoenix are still cheap!

Whe talking about 10-15 years away, I feel the biggest issue at that time will be the influx of competition from other emerging-metro areas. If MLB decides to expand, probably by only two teams, then get out the crystal ball and look 10 years down the road: 1)Las Vegas will be much bigger with more moeny, 2) SA will be the leading candidate, 3)the Inland Empire will be a huge player, 4) Northern New Jersey will want some attention, 5) Charolette will seek to build something downtown, 6) Oklahoma City may perhaps be sniffing around for downtown revitlization, 7) Sac-town will be a huge competition representing the "Valley" and perhaps even some others that I can't think of right now. Our competition only gets tougher as the years go by, so be prepared for a long list of suitors on stand-by as well. And today's stats are going to work when we talk about a decade from now (look at PDX in the 80's vs. the 90's).

If MLB is willing to have 3 team markets at that time, then it's game over for everyone outside of LA & NY (and maybe Sac depending on how loosely defined a market is).

The other cities you mention have (and will have) significant hurdles that SA & PDX do not have. But like I said, 10 years is a long time. I wouldn't bet on any of them that far in advance, that's for sure.

Curious, what are the major hurdles that some of these other metro areas would face that SA and PDX would not have?

Vegas - gambling, the casinos are against it, public funding would be a nightmare since the other competing entertainment in town did not get public funding.

Charlotte - a lot more sports competition (NFL, NBA, ACC sports, NHL (in Raleigh), NASCAR, Carolina League baseball). But I view them in the same league as SA & PDX --- growing top 25 markets that are worthy of more than one Big 4 franchise.

Sacramento - proximity to Bay Area and much higher distate for public funding of arenas after the Kings came begging for the umpteenth time for money

OKC - Smaller market with a slower growth rate, a town that should be thrilled and content with NBA or NHL, a beautiful, new, publicly funded AAA stadium that cannot be upgraded to MLB standards and thus would have to be imploded if MLB came to town.

Again, these are arguments that hold merit in today's world. In a decade, these hurdles will no longer exist or other hurdles will be encountered just as there will be in PDX and SA. Sac-town is growing and the surrounding valley will continue to blow-up. In 10 years there will be about 71/2 million in the Bay Area and over 2 million in the Sac metro not counting the valley (2 hour drive in any direction).
Charlotte will be a serious contender. East Coast market with rich history. My opionion is the warm climates of California will be on the minds of most owners (inland empire and Sac will be to hard to pass up).

Well then I go back to my original premise. If MLB is OK with three teams clustered together, it will be LA & NY and nobody else has a prayer.

And I don't see how you can say that population growth will wipe out the hurdles that I brought up since the only one that pertained to population was OKC. Maybe I'm not following your logic though since I'm distracted by the "minutes to opening day" counter on the computer.

All that I am saying is that with strong population growth the politics and culture of that area change as well. When I was in Seattle, prior to Microsoft, Starbucks, Grunge, Seattle was still seen as mostly backwoods. But with the culture changes that these brought the mentality as a whole changed in the Puget Sound area. A decade is in reality a long time in our short lives, so 10 years from who knows Mexico City and Puerto Rico can be the expansion teams.

Where was PDX in the mid-80's? To be honest, no where. Intel and the leftovers from Seattle helped out with growth and culture. This all happened in a short time remind you, so all of these emerging metros can and for the most part probable will fall into the cool, hip, economic engine as PDX reached in the late 90's (see my point, timing). As my Starbucks states, "time is luck, and yours (PDX's) just ran out."

quote:

Originally posted by The Cactus Leaguer:
Vegas - gambling, the casinos are against it, public funding would be a nightmare since the other competing entertainment in town did not get public funding.

Charlotte - a lot more sports competition (NFL, NBA, ACC sports, NHL (in Raleigh), NASCAR, Carolina League baseball). But I view them in the same league as SA & PDX --- growing top 25 markets that are worthy of more than one Big 4 franchise.

Sacramento - proximity to Bay Area and much higher distate for public funding of arenas after the Kings came begging for the umpteenth time for money

OKC - Smaller market with a slower growth rate, a town that should be thrilled and content with NBA or NHL, a beautiful, new, publicly funded AAA stadium that cannot be upgraded to MLB standards and thus would have to be imploded if MLB came to town.

Charlotte has two major strikes against it:
1. Atlanta, 2. Washington, DC. You can also put the region's conservatism into the mix as another strike against it. Atlanta wants to be up there with NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. Washington doesn't want any future competition, period. And don't forget the map that showed how the tv territories were divvied up. Charlotte & the Carolinas were split between Atlanta and Washington, DC. If you think its hard getting the Mariners to give Portland MLB a chance, try selling the idea of Charlotte MLB to the Atlanta & Washington, DC baseball owners.
Not so sure on Sacramento, Rockstar. Things do change, but unfortunately, a lot of things stay exactly the same. If California starts being a lot more aggressive in landing pro-sports teams, I'd start believing more in Sacramento. However, if the status quo remains, I just don't see Sacramento being a major player at all. Sheesh, even Gov. Scharwnegger (sp?) is trying to sell folks on an LA NFL team, and there's hardly anything happening yet. But then again, we have no idea what is occuring behind closed doors.

Sorry, but can't buy into the Charolette theory. The East Coast cooridor is huge, thus market sharing is/will not be that big of concern. When talking North and South Carolina there are over 10 million right now I believe! I would never underestimate a Cali city. Sac-town will be a huge competitor in 10 years. Within a 50 mile radius they will for sure have more people than the PDX metro area, plus better corporate businesses. My crystal ball for expansion (10 years from now if it happens) is; 1) San Antonio, 2) Charlotte, 3) Sac-town, 4) Inland Empire, 5) Norther Jersey and then Portland. Just my thoughts but we must review history to somewhat predict the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockstar:
My crystal ball for expansion (10 years from now if it happens) is; 1) San Antonio, 2) Charlotte, 3) Sac-town, 4) Inland Empire, 5) Norther Jersey and then Portland.

If MLB wants three teams in close proximity:

1. Northern NJ; 2. Inland Empire; 3. (distant 3rd) Sacramento; 4. Everyone else.

If MLB continues to prefer geographic diversification:

1. Portland; 2. San Antonio; 3. Charlotte; 4. Sacramento; 5. Orlando; 6. Norfolk; 7. Vegas.

Vegas and San Antonio would be a better draw when talking about diversification (geographicly). PDX just does not make sense to me when talking about expansion of two teams, with these other markets.

As I said before, Vegas has other issues.

San Antonio will be a viable MLB market. 10 years hence, I could see them or PDX as #1 and #1A, interchangeable. The reason I put them second is because their population is sprawled out over a wider distance. Portland has a more concentrated population that is more likely to keep the stadium full on weeknights. Yes Austin is huge and growing but the Austin market will split between Houston and San Antonio. And San Antonio is intentionally confusing their current growth rates because the new census was redrawn in their favor and also Katrina refugees. That would be like saying Portland shrank by 400k because they made Salem (which is way closer than Austin is to SA) into a separate market.

This is also the reason I put Charlotte third. The state population is large but very spread out. Charlotte metro was under 1.5 million in the last census, and if you look at the growth projections, they are highly unlikely to have a more populated "close in" population than Portland in the next 10 years. The state is perfect for weekend events like ACC sports, NASCAR, NFL, etc., or for events that are spread out in many locations like Carolina League baseball. This is why they are already saturated in those entertainment options, and this is why I don't think MLB would choose them over San Antonio and PDX 10 years from now.

Also, when I'm looking at MLB, I'm looking ahead 25-30 years (a stadium lease agreement). You are saying that all these other places are going to fly by Portland in 10 years but I don't see any evidence of it happening.

Everything points to Portland and Oregon having consistent, above average growth rates over the next 25-30 years. Portland is on pace to grow by 20% this decade DESPITE the fact that Nike has done little hiring and Intel/high tech has been in the toilet. Imagine what the growth rate would be like if one of the business sectors (aside from small business) actually takes off.

I'm not a "rah-rah, Portland is great and everyplace else sucks" kind of guy. I know Phoenix is great. I know SA/Cha/Sac are growing fast. And I know that we have NO SHOT if, when the opportunity comes, that we just sit back and assume that MLB will be begging for Portland über alles. I'm not an idiot.

I just don't see growth rates or other evidence to suggest that they will blow by PDX and overcome their shortcomings anytime soon. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

I was not talking about just growth rates. It is more the types of people moving to certain areas. Portland attracts the easy-going, we don't need anything else crowd. Other cities attract those looking for perhaps big league sports and othe big city bank for your buck items. Growth will happen everywhere along the southern boundary and the Carolinas as well. Look at your neighbors in PDX right now and that is the types moving there,.