Bbox, I got to ask...if you feel that a stadium is not a good way to stimulate Fremont's economy on a large scale...what could we try to do that would parallel its magnitude? What I'm trying to get at is if a stadium to all the anti-a's folks is such a bad idea, what other proposals can we pursue?

Just to reiterate I will only carry over my previous support for  a stadium if certain issues have been satisfactorily addressed this time around.

payment for clean up
$$$ for the land
impact on nearest residential areas

At present, only money for the land has been addressed. Any idea where money for the  clean up will come?

Ishan - Your question is confusing to me.  
Let me be specific for purposes of clarity  -

1.  Stadiums by all independant measures represent an economic loss to their hosting communities.  See the variety of independant references contained herein if you are unclear on this notion.  Once you grasp the negative economic consequence, any rational thinking individual could not suggest a stadium as beneficial to the TOTAL of our community.

2. So, when you ask "..what else we could do.."  that would "..parallel the magnitude.." of a stadium, I am puzzled and I wonder if you are  simply enamoured with the idea of building something really big and flashy  in the midst of the community - - - (but forget the  economic consequence to all but the few businesses in the immediate vicinity AND mr. Wolfe. This doesn't make sense though does it ?)


To emphasize the point (and as a half-hearted response to your basic question) there ARE OTHER  ideas which, probably will seem ludicrous to you - - - if so, that's good - - - because the suggestion that CNN and Fortune magazine make is just as ludicrous as building a stadium (at least in my mind) - - but according to their information, we could do as well by dropping these same funds from an airplane across our city - and could probably have a more positive economic impact.

Specifically I am refering to this -

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/12/21/252668/inde...





Ishan -  the notion that our city *must* do something on this scale is fundamentally flawed.  Civic planning is NOT a process of stumbling into a developer that desires  land-use subsidies . . . . and then scrambling to put the development somewhere - - - ANYWHERE. . . .THAT kind of civic planning mentality has resulted in - - - take a look around.  .  

On the much lesser priority and matter of simple aesthetics alone -  my sense is that there is a scale to the way cities grow and should be planned.  Pac Bell could not have occurred in Daly City, or in Dublin, or (IMHO) in Fremont. You couldn't put the Superdome in Manteca. . . . .cities that do eventually decide they have the economic wherewithall to SUPPORT stadiums are much much larger than ours. . . . and possess the economic stamina (or naivite') to do so - - - they also have a scale to their communities which DOES NOT make the stadium a centerpiece or "CROWN JEWEL" as has been described by our leaders - - - these other communities had grown and evolved LONG before modern stadia were proposed . the critical mass of services, infrastructure, and residents PRECEDED these stadiums and the scale f even these massive ballparks is relatvely diminutive in relation to their surrounding communities.  

Think horse in front of cart.

But you and others ask "What else can we do ?" - -indeed, a fair question - and for me the first priority is to get folks in City Hall that are not mired in ongoing admiration of the Kings clothes and who possess an independance of thought which encourages and seeks approval of a BROAD electorate.

Someone said, "Keep on doin' what'you been doin' and you'll keep on gettin' what you been gettin'" - - -

We need to change something fundamental to our planning processes, Ishan.  There are far too many situations where the cart is before the horse in our community   - -- and the stadium idea is just another example of that same kind of - - - - - - -  - thinking.

Spot on, Ishan.....

I haven't gone back to look at the BLOGS- - - but my recollection of my  personal position will substantiate that the stadium idea has evolved over considerable timeframe. . . . at the outset, I had some  doubts about how this could work in Pac Com...expressed concerns, but had not made up my mind one way or the other.

Initially - I knew little or nothign of stadium economics but was preoccupied with logistics of the Pac Com site - --For example -   I thought that there was a possible solution with an obvious conflict between vehicular and pedestrian traffic at Automall and supported the idea of "flyovers" crossing over Automall - thereby allowing vehicluar traffic to exit 880 relatively unimpeded through this first Automall intersection . . . . NOT doing this would be a completely irrational decision in my  mind.


However, the more I looked at the Pac Com proposal, the  more confused I got with regard to how you manage the obvious conflict of retail consumers who just want to buy a lawnmower and stadium goers  -  all of whom are forced into a common area . . .   parking HAD to be a problem in my opinon.

Frankly, my starting place on the Warm Springs area was "Maybe THIS could work." - --  BUT at this same time,  my work on locating more data on stadium economics was virtually unanimous in its assertions that this was an idea that was a bad economic investment....and the more varous factions debated the topic, the less there was in the way of data. . . . . the  counter arguments were almost unanimously based on generalizations and  imagery - NO DATA !  how can that be ???


Isn't this a case where the complete and total absence of INDEPENDANT DATA  speaks SO LOUDLY ???

I and others would be very interested in reviewing data that contradicts the reams of information provided  to date - - - authored by someone  outside the circle of economic interests (which includes City Hall) -

Ishan - Many of us have been watching and discussing this topic for several  years now and I must tell you that the relative silence created by the an almost total absence of FACTS supportive of stadium economics - - - - is indeed deafening.  

http://demause.net/skydome.html

TESTIMONY OF NEIL DEMAUSE
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Quote - "This is, in fact, the sports industry’s dirty little secret: New stadiums don’t make money."

http://www.goodjobsny.org/demause-testimony-corrected.pdf

Some key takeaways -

“The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area,”

"• a statistically significant negative impact on the retail and services sectors of the local economy, including an average net loss of 1,924 jobs;"

"...it is fairly common for city officials – blinded by bright visions of dollar signs – to pose as cheerleaders for projects aimed at attracting pro teams."


http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/04/1117stadiums.html

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201005031730