Letter to MLB from Kathryn McDonald

Dear Commissioner Selig, Mr. DuPuy, and Major League Baseball managers,

I am a resident of Fremont, California and I am writing to implore you to rethink any plans of moving the A's to Fremont.

We, are not a city ready to take on the responsibility of a stadium and its 36,000 regular visitors. We have NONE of the synergetic features (tourist base, complementary entertainment venues, restaurants, etc.) a host city would need to offset the cost of growing our services. We agree that our Warm Springs location offers great access, but you already have such a location in Oakland, and many more local fans.

Taking the A's away from current fans in the hope of making "better" fans in a more affluent area is unrealistic. You will lose much of the fan base from Oakland and north, and suffer from image degradation. Concerned citizens will mobilize to create endless negative publicity about the proposal and its damaging potential impact to our small city infrastructure. We will bring to light a barrage of detrimental data regarding the use of city and redevelopment monies, redirection of hundreds of thousands of dollars from our state's depleted education funds, and potential harm to local businesses that will impact your ability to attract sponsorship dollars, and important clients.

Many of us are fans of baseball. I have attended A's games, Met's games from NJ, and Rangers games in both the old and new stadiums. We love hanging out in the sun with friends watching a game. I agree Keith Wolff's argument that Arlington is a BEAUTIFUL stadium, but Arlington, TX is not Fremont, CA. Love of baseball will not pay our bills.

Compared to surrounding communities, Arlington, TX is a lower-cost bedroom community/college town with an economy based on hosting large venues (i.e. University of TX, 6 Flags Over TX, Cowboys Stadium, Maverick Stadium, etc.). Its median household income of ~$50K/yr is less than half of the median in Fremont, and the mean detached home price is ~$150K (one of the lowest in the nation). Even with the depressed economy, the median Fremont home runs over $700K. The land alone for this project is estimated to cost $2 million an acre ($240 million for the footprint of the proposal). Arlington had little opportunity cost, as it had a high percentage of labor for part time/temporary jobs (students) and cheap real estate. Fremont has a highly educated population requiring high paying permanent positions, and expensive prime real estate. The potential cost to our community is exorbitant because we will not only bear the cost of the land and infrastructure (we are not fooled by the implications of access to county funds as yet uncommitted and nonexistent), but also the opportunity cost in real, living-wage jobs for the residents of our community and our region.

Please reconsider the fit of the location you think you have found in Fremont, and focus your efforts on improving the prime location you already have in Oakland.

Kind Regards,

Kathryn McDonald

Tags: letter to MLB, no stadium

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alex Singh on November 4, 2010 at 5:29pm

but this is all opinion of you, right? some of us like the council and dislike fcn and its people. why is our opinion wrong?

bbox231 said:

It is interesting the furvor with which developer interests need to lever this outcome to warn those who might attempt similar opposition in the future.

Some lessons I take away from this years' outcome (which haven't changed significantly in the last couple of cycles of Fremont politics ) -

Fremont is a wildly diverse community with a constituency highly fragmented along ethnic and economic divides. These divisions serve to slow community interaction and discussion.

The status quo exhibits a solid grasp on some 15 or 20 thousand votes. But, as usual, voter apathy and non-participation is evident as even these numbers are a relative drop in the bucket compared to the total available Fremont electorate.

For whatever reasons, the political apathy made obvious through low voter turnout does not appear to extend to the lengthy lists of names of those who seek to run for City Council. There are clear examples of those who apear to have little or no desire to achieve any outcome except to add a name to the ballot. . . . . despite the fact that there is a not-free cost to doing so. These additional names clearly work to the benefit of the interests which drive the 15 or 20 k votes since a high percentage of anti-incumbancy voters will simply check any box on their ballot without the word "incumbant" appearing next to it.

A press which is responsive to the concerns of the larger community, first, and takes seriously its political "watchdog" role, has every opportunity to change some of these dynamics. Or, the electorate can be continually soothed and reassured with ongoing and healthy doses of lightheartedness, and occassional platitudes, all masquerading as "news".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bbox231 on November 5, 2010 at 5:51am

No, Alex - you are mistaken (again).

The quote you provided is not (as you say) ALL opinion - take a look again.

Once you are capable of differentiating FACT from OPINION - let me know, I'd be glad to chat further.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bbox231 on November 5, 2010 at 6:40pm

The practice of stuffing the ballot with pro-incumbancy shills is pretty standard practice in many other communities.

Here's one example -

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-political-commentary/2010/1...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on November 17, 2010 at 2:58pm

BBox,

Do you actually read what you write?

"Stuffing the ballot with pro-incumbency shills"? Equating Fremont with Chicago politics?

I'm very curious, why is it that there is always a conspiracy whenever others don't share your fringe opinion? Couldn't it just be that your opinion is rejected as implausible or incorrect or dishonest?

I would have to agree with Alex in that the conclusions you arrive at are purely your opinion. Unless you are a sociologist, economist and pollster, in which case they would at least be supported by some knowledge. I also agree that I also like some currently on the city council. I have met and often agree with Anu.

As an owner of a business in Fremont, and a long-time resident, I want opportunities for the city and its people and the sad reality is that FCN, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Bacon, all misrepresented the case against the ballpark here and removed the opportunity for all of us. You did it as well. I don't like intentional bending of the truth, and I doubt many other citizens do either. If you can't make your case honestly, and respond to critical questions by others who share a different point of view, you don't deserve credibility on issues that can affect the rest of us.

So when looking for blame, first look in the mirror.

bbox231 said:

The practice of stuffing the ballot with pro-incumbancy shills is pretty standard practice in many other communities.

Here's one example -

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-political-commentary/2010/1...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RonK on November 17, 2010 at 11:59pm

The good news is the ball park is dead and not coming back

Alex Singh said:

sunshine to harrison and anu. is it time to admit you were dreaming when you always say fremont is against ballpark?

Randy Russell said:
Dear sweet Alex! Always such a happy voice, spreading sunshine wherever you go. Have a nice life.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dexter on November 18, 2010 at 12:35pm

The *actual* reality is that **Lew Wolff** decided not to pursue a Fremont ballpark after the housing market collapsed (couldn't build and sell a bunch of homes to fund his portion of the ballpark) and the Pacific Commons retailers said they didn't want a ballpark next door. Blaming "FCN, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Bacon" for that is a total misrepresentation of anything that happened.

Some people (don't recall if FCN had any hand in that) organized a rally/protest during one of the A's "informational" meetings at Weibel and that attracted some media attention (and a "mob" reference from the Mayor). Pro stadium people later held a rally at the SaddleRack. So many people voiced their concerns against or showed their support for a Fremont A's ballpark. Some such as the PC retailers had a lot of clout (at least for the location). Others, including FCN, could only state their reasons and opinions (which you disagreed with but that doesn't make them "misrepresentations") but had no direct ability to prevent anything. The only "misrepresentation" is that anybody other than Lew Wolff "removed the opportunity" for a Fremont ballpark for a number of reasons, public outcry being a minor one among them.

In any case, I know you'll never agree with the outcome or understand that Fremont dodged a bullet, both financially and for the character of the city.

Michael said:

As an owner of a business in Fremont, and a long-time resident, I want opportunities for the city and its people and the sad reality is that FCN, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Bacon, all misrepresented the case against the ballpark here and removed the opportunity for all of us.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bbox231 on November 19, 2010 at 8:11am

Gosh, Michael - the idea of a "conspiracy" seems a bit extreme . . .
I guess I would differentiate between the completely legal actions of those who seek to preserve the status-quo . . . and a "conspiracy" . . .

But, it is an interesting thought you raise. (Why do you people jump to such an extreme ?)

And, I respect your right to an opinion.

I think you've made the point that you find my opinions dishonest or implausible. . . . But, interestingly you do so WITHOUT any substantiating observations - yours is a simple expression of doubt - with zero in the way of substantiating facts.

You fail to consider and offer plausible explanation for any of your observations and instead build an argument ad hominum. Which, by the way, seems to be a repeating platform for the pro-incumbancy / pro-stadium group . . . . Why is that ?

Why is it that this group is so uniformly aligned behind the need to use matters of personality and anecdote and is makes such little use of facts and information with which to substantiate their thoughts and opinions ?

It is a frightful prospect when I consider those who are self-described owners of businesses, or worse, may be decision makers within our municipal organization - and who seemingly make such consistant use of emotion in their decision making.

And, between you and I, I cannot imagine a worse scenario than to be expecting our little band of emotion-based decision makers to attempt to negotiate a stadium deal, which was beneficial to the larger Fremont community, and, while going up against Lew's lengthy list of highly skilled "professionals".

Michael said:

BBox,

Do you actually read what you write?

"Stuffing the ballot with pro-incumbency shills"? Equating Fremont with Chicago politics?

I'm very curious, why is it that there is always a conspiracy whenever others don't share your fringe opinion? Couldn't it just be that your opinion is rejected as implausible or incorrect or dishonest?

I would have to agree with Alex in that the conclusions you arrive at are purely your opinion. Unless you are a sociologist, economist and pollster, in which case they would at least be supported by some knowledge. I also agree that I also like some currently on the city council. I have met and often agree with Anu.

As an owner of a business in Fremont, and a long-time resident, I want opportunities for the city and its people and the sad reality is that FCN, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Bacon, all misrepresented the case against the ballpark here and removed the opportunity for all of us. You did it as well. I don't like intentional bending of the truth, and I doubt many other citizens do either. If you can't make your case honestly, and respond to critical questions by others who share a different point of view, you don't deserve credibility on issues that can affect the rest of us.

So when looking for blame, first look in the mirror.

bbox231 said:
The practice of stuffing the ballot with pro-incumbancy shills is pretty standard practice in many other communities.

Here's one example -

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-political-commentary/2010/1...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on November 30, 2010 at 10:06am

And with it, all the jobs. Good work!

RonK said:

The good news is the ball park is dead and not coming back

Alex Singh said:
sunshine to harrison and anu. is it time to admit you were dreaming when you always say fremont is against ballpark?

Randy Russell said:
Dear sweet Alex! Always such a happy voice, spreading sunshine wherever you go. Have a nice life.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on November 30, 2010 at 10:20am

Hey Dexter, why not be truthful for a change?

Lew Wolff pulled out because it was too difficult to work with Fremont due to the small and vocal group who disseminated false information. Lew said that he could not spend more money on the Fremont deal because of this early opposition. That's a fact.

To pretend that he just up and left is, as is typical with you, misleading.

Face it, YOU and your ilk removed the opportunity for all of Fremont. You removed the opportunity for the jobs to construct the $350,000,000 project, and to work at the ballpark. You removed the opportunity far all the restaurants and subsidiary industries in Fremont to grow and employ more people.

You cite decades-old studies about football stadiums, soccer stadiums, and 40 year old mega-stadiums to bolster your point.

But when asked to provide a SINGLE study of the project, or even a similar one (Pac Bell? Shark tank?) you were unable to do so. You deny the fact that the shark tank has made millions for the city and employed hundreds. You allow and encourage comments here about fears of children playing in front yards being hit by home run baseballs. This is why your candidates lost. This is why I, and many others, contributed to their opponents.

Fremont dodged a bullet? I guess the US economy dodged one too when it lost 8.5 million jobs. Brilliant theory.

Dexter said:

The *actual* reality is that **Lew Wolff** decided not to pursue a Fremont ballpark after the housing market collapsed (couldn't build and sell a bunch of homes to fund his portion of the ballpark) and the Pacific Commons retailers said they didn't want a ballpark next door. Blaming "FCN, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Bacon" for that is a total misrepresentation of anything that happened.

Some people (don't recall if FCN had any hand in that) organized a rally/protest during one of the A's "informational" meetings at Weibel and that attracted some media attention (and a "mob" reference from the Mayor). Pro stadium people later held a rally at the SaddleRack. So many people voiced their concerns against or showed their support for a Fremont A's ballpark. Some such as the PC retailers had a lot of clout (at least for the location). Others, including FCN, could only state their reasons and opinions (which you disagreed with but that doesn't make them "misrepresentations") but had no direct ability to prevent anything. The only "misrepresentation" is that anybody other than Lew Wolff "removed the opportunity" for a Fremont ballpark for a number of reasons, public outcry being a minor one among them.

In any case, I know you'll never agree with the outcome or understand that Fremont dodged a bullet, both financially and for the character of the city.

Michael said:

As an owner of a business in Fremont, and a long-time resident, I want opportunities for the city and its people and the sad reality is that FCN, Ms. McDonald, and Mr. Bacon, all misrepresented the case against the ballpark here and removed the opportunity for all of us.