Not taking a political position

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on June 10, 2009 at 12:26pm

Kathy,

How can you stay neutral when you are biased?

1. No you don't, you wanted to put forth only your opinions of the stadium deal.
2. YOU are a political group. You can't have it both ways, you are either unbiased (and therefore stop writing biased postings) or you are biased and write posting bent to you point of view.
3. You're kidding on this one, right? You OPPOSED OPPOSED and OPPOSED the stadium. You grasped for anything you could get people up in arms about and that was playing on people's fears about crime and econimic issues with questionable, cherry-picked statistics and biased postings.
4. Also a joke I think. You denied and made no effort at all to see the positive aspects of haning a stadium in Fremont. You have only one side represented here (except for me). It's the side of feart mongering NIMBYs.


I have to admit, after reading so many post here, this one really gave me a chuckle!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fremonter on June 10, 2009 at 2:20pm

Michael, I know Kathy can respond on her own, but I'd just like to point out that everyone is biased in some way or other - who is not formed by their observations and experiences? Those who were opposed to the stadium have as much right to their opinions as those who were in favor of it. I may not agree with your opinions, but I appreciate that you share them. Perhaps you know, do the stadium proponents still maintain a group or site that I could visit?

BTW, "feart mongering" is just priceless! Thanks for (unintentional?) laugh!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on June 10, 2009 at 3:47pm

Just pointing out that calling your political group "non-political" is clearly delusional or disingenuine. she says she doesn't want political groups to use the site (I assume this means, except for her political group).

I especially like her revelation that the economic and crime issues would be a disaster for Fremont. Based on what? Are they a disaster for PacBell, I think not.

Since the stadium deal has been killed, what purpose would there be for a website to support it in Fremont?

Intentional or not... you'll have to guess.

fremonter said:

Michael, I know Kathy can respond on her own, but I'd just like to point out that everyone is biased in some way or other - who is not formed by their observations and experiences? Those who were opposed to the stadium have as much right to their opinions as those who were in favor of it. I may not agree with your opinions, but I appreciate that you share them. Perhaps you know, do the stadium proponents still maintain a group or site that I could visit?

BTW, "feart mongering" is just priceless! Thanks for (unintentional?) laugh!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathy McDonald on June 11, 2009 at 1:40pm

Hi Michael,

You are amusing. It is clear that you know how to write, but the larger question is...can you read...or comprehend that which you read???

The website came about after our yahoo group, blog and meetings. We were well into disucssions, and research about the stadium. Therefore, opinions (by the time they reached the site) were already well formulated, and the overwhelming slant on the stadium was from people who could see that the cherry-picked statistics (like the research showing that every stadium ever built has produced a net negative income for the host city--Journal of Sports Economics) was against the project. Guess most people just get it...go figure. Anyway, the point is that the opinion was an example of how the discussion formed into an opinion and the sharing of said opinion hatched an action group that created a public forum to build support and do something with that knowledge for the betterment of our city. FCN is a place for such things to happen.

I have political views, as has everyone. That is not to say that my views are the only views on this site...clearly, we're still letting you rant about something that is now, happily, history. It does however take away from CURRENT issues, so again I beg of you, take all the shots at me you would like, but do it on a new topic.

Thanks,

Kathy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on June 12, 2009 at 10:35am

Sorry Kathy but that's not exactly true.

Your Yahoo group and blog and meetings were all under the umbrella of being against the stadium. All you did was try to get information and ammo to back up your anti-stadium agenda.

To say that the opinion hatched out of any type of diverse mindset of the people behind is untrue. It was formed by a bunch of people who didn't want the stadium - period.

It's amazing to me that you somehow think your opinion about the stadium is shared by the majorit in Fremont. Fremont elected a pro-stadium mayor, and denied anti-stadium candidates. I can read and compreghend, can you? did you read about how the San Jose Shark Tank has added over a billion dollars to the local economy since it has opened? Or how it has a yearly contibution to the city of over $5 million? Did you comprehend it?

Once again I ask: where is your data referring to the stadium in Fremont or a stadium in a similar type situation? You don't have any because none exists since there is no stadium with the dynamics of the one proposed in Fremont.

BTW, thanks for "letting" me rant. You have my supreme gratitude for your never-ending generosity to us peasants who wanted Fremont to grow and prosper, the 219,800 others who live in Fremont.

What current issues are the biased folks who ruined the stadium deal before there was even any information to hold a meaningful debate going to tackle? I can only go by past experience and say that so far, this group is anything but non-political and anything but unbiased so I'd really like to see how you handle anything of this importance. Oh, that's right, there will never be anything of this importance again in Fremont.

Kathy said:

Hi Michael,

You are amusing. It is clear that you know how to write, but the larger question is...can you read...or comprehend that which you read???

The website came about after our yahoo group, blog and meetings. We were well into disucssions, and research about the stadium. Therefore, opinions (by the time they reached the site) were already well formulated, and the overwhelming slant on the stadium was from people who could see that the cherry-picked statistics (like the research showing that every stadium ever built has produced a net negative income for the host city--Journal of Sports Economics) was against the project. Guess most people just get it...go figure. Anyway, the point is that the opinion was an example of how the discussion formed into an opinion and the sharing of said opinion hatched an action group that created a public forum to build support and do something with that knowledge for the betterment of our city. FCN is a place for such things to happen.

I have political views, as has everyone. That is not to say that my views are the only views on this site...clearly, we're still letting you rant about something that is now, happily, history. It does however take away from CURRENT issues, so again I beg of you, take all the shots at me you would like, but do it on a new topic.

Thanks,

Kathy

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fremonter on June 12, 2009 at 11:34am

Michael, excuse me for butting into your conversation with Kathy (again), but you're making some assumptions about FCN members as a whole that I know are not correct for me personally.

Back when the stadium process started getting serious, I thought it would be a big change for Fremont, so I wanted to find out more about it. As you know, I'm not a baseball fan, but a business coming to Fremont is a business coming to Fremont, and since this would have been bigger than the average business, I wanted to find out how it would effect us.

I wasn't looking for information to back up a pre-existing anti-stadium opinion, just for answers to some of the questions that I had about infrastructure, transportation, taxes, and other impacts that would inevitably flow from the presence of the stadium.

I was universally unsuccessful in getting any information from City staff and local representatives, beyond blanket assurances that all of those issues would somehow be taken care of eventually, after the decision had been made to approve the construction of the stadium.

In this information vacuum, the only source of information about how game attendees would get to the stadium (car, BART, bus, train), how much tax revenue the City would get from the stadium, the levels of police services that would be required by the stadium, traffic and road impacts, etc., that I could identify was other local residents. Eventually, these local residents coalesced into the organization that we now call FCN.

You may be surprised to know that FCN was not monolithic in it's beliefs about the stadium. There were members who were in favor of the stadium if it was located in one location as opposed to another. Some were more confident in it's potential to have a positive impact on local business than others, and some members disagreed about the viability of a bus bridge from the existing Fremont BART station to the stadium. As informed individuals, we don't always agree on every issue, but I do believe that we have been successful in remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

If you were able to join us for our meeting with Vice Mayor Natarajan last night, you saw that FCN members are interested in a wide variety of issues; some focus on schools, some on business development, some on crime. I didn't agree with every viewpoint that was expressed last night, but I am proud to remain a member of a group that gives individuals an opportunity to work to improve whatever issues are important to them.

Which brings me to a final point; I think it is inexpressibly sad that you believe that "there will never be anything of this importance again in Fremont". Michael, while there is life, there is hope. None of us knows what tomorrow will bring, but I am confident that both blessings and challenges will continue to come to Fremont. It is up to us to work together to determine what opportunities we want to take advantage of and what we want to reject. I hope you will join in the effort.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on June 12, 2009 at 3:00pm

Fremonter,

Thanks for your response.

I will take you at your word that you had no preconceived opinion about the stadium prior to your enlightenment later on. This is VERY difficult to do however since my review of all the postings, both here and on the Yahoo site, are nearly completely one-sided.

It's interesting that you say that since you could not get what you wanted, information wise, from official sources, you relied on the other members of FCN for this info. Herein lies the problem. How did any of them get any accurate info if you could not? I've yet to see any studies done by the members of FCN on this stadium not a single one. Further, I've yet to see anyone who is qualified as an expert with any comments on this issue in FCN. One of your "experts" that was cited on this page was Ex-Mayor Morrison, and his contribution to the argument was basically that "there were problems that would need to be solved". Current mayor, Wasserman, was derided as not having credibility. Isn't the current mayor just as much an expert as the former one? It appeared that on FCN, he was not an expert, and, coincidentally, he was pro-stadium.

Let's also be frank about the last comment you made. I too beleive that good - and bad things will come to Fremont as any other city. However, I hope you will admit that only about one in a thousdand cities in the US have a baseball park. Cities with baseball (or other pro sports teams) are destinations for people for no other reason that to watch the game.

I'd really like to hear what other projects Fremont could take on that would bring any tiny fraction of the publicity, pride, or drawing in of revenue from suppounding areas as the ball park would. We're likely going to lose Nummi, so the largest employer in Fremont will be gone soon sadly. Do you want another shopping center? Newpark Mall is in danger of closing it's doors, Mervyn's is gone. I've lived in Fremont for 20 years and I'll say it again: Fremont has nothing to draw people here except tiny Niles for antiqe shoppers. So not only do we spend our own money in other cities, but those people don't come here to spend thier money. All baseball fans go to SF or Oakland, all hockey fans go to San Jose, soccer fans too (to the stadium Lew Wolff is building). As long as people have such a limited and narrow band of acceptance of things like the stadium, Fremont will always just be a suburb of San Jose and a place people pass through when going there or north to SF. We don't even have a movie theater. We go to Union City, Newark, or Milpitas to spend our movie dollars.

fremont is about as big as Orlando Florida in terms of population, we're much bigger in terms of area. Which one is better known? And for what? The great public watchdog groups who are against anything that isn't a shopping mall? No, they are known for what they have that people want to see. Which is why we're known for nothing but tiny Niles and that is only by the people who live here.

It's all cool to talk about rosy futures and bright horizons but I'm a realist who would love to hear what big plans you have that will provide even a fraction of what the park would have.

Listening intently.






So basically, what appears to have happened (as you eloquently said "nature abhors a vacuum") was that in the absence of real information a group of people got together and somehow made their own information. I submit that this information was biased and slanted in an anti-stadium way however, based on all the posts here and on the Yahoo website.


fremonter said:

Michael, excuse me for butting into your conversation with Kathy (again), but you're making some assumptions about FCN members as a whole that I know are not correct for me personally.

Back when the stadium process started getting serious, I thought it would be a big change for Fremont, so I wanted to find out more about it. As you know, I'm not a baseball fan, but a business coming to Fremont is a business coming to Fremont, and since this would have been bigger than the average business, I wanted to find out how it would effect us.

I wasn't looking for information to back up a pre-existing anti-stadium opinion, just for answers to some of the questions that I had about infrastructure, transportation, taxes, and other impacts that would inevitably flow from the presence of the stadium.

I was universally unsuccessful in getting any information from City staff and local representatives, beyond blanket assurances that all of those issues would somehow be taken care of eventually, after the decision had been made to approve the construction of the stadium.

In this information vacuum, the only source of information about how game attendees would get to the stadium (car, BART, bus, train), how much tax revenue the City would get from the stadium, the levels of police services that would be required by the stadium, traffic and road impacts, etc., that I could identify was other local residents. Eventually, these local residents coalesced into the organization that we now call FCN.

You may be surprised to know that FCN was not monolithic in it's beliefs about the stadium. There were members who were in favor of the stadium if it was located in one location as opposed to another. Some were more confident in it's potential to have a positive impact on local business than others, and some members disagreed about the viability of a bus bridge from the existing Fremont BART station to the stadium. As informed individuals, we don't always agree on every issue, but I do believe that we have been successful in remaining open to alternative viewpoints.

If you were able to join us for our meeting with Vice Mayor Natarajan last night, you saw that FCN members are interested in a wide variety of issues; some focus on schools, some on business development, some on crime. I didn't agree with every viewpoint that was expressed last night, but I am proud to remain a member of a group that gives individuals an opportunity to work to improve whatever issues are important to them.

Which brings me to a final point; I think it is inexpressibly sad that you believe that "there will never be anything of this importance again in Fremont". Michael, while there is life, there is hope. None of us knows what tomorrow will bring, but I am confident that both blessings and challenges will continue to come to Fremont. It is up to us to work together to determine what opportunities we want to take advantage of and what we want to reject. I hope you will join in the effort.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on June 12, 2009 at 4:36pm

Michael --

Where do you get your facts?

Orlando (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando,_Florida):

Area
- City 101.0 sq mi (261.5 km2)
- Land 93.5 sq mi (242.2 km2)
- Water 7.5 sq mi (19.3 km2)

Fremont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont,_California):

Area
- Total 92 sq mi (225.6 km2)
- Land 76.7 sq mi (198.6 km2)
- Water 10.4 sq mi (27.0 km2)

Budgets (taken from the published budgets before any changes due to the current economic crisis)

Orlando Budget for 2008/09 -- $926M
Fremont Budget for 2008/09 -- $147M

City Staffing (taken from published budgets)

Orlando -- 3411 employees
Fremont -- 920 employees

Orlando Sworn Police Officers -- 757
Fremont Sworn Police Officers -- 188 (http://www.fremontpolice.org/alarm/faq.html)

Likewise, where have you gotten your facts about the Shark tank? I have seen the April 2008 Economic Impact Analysis that predicts $190M of economic impact from the tank, but that was premised upon revenues brought in via the NCAA tournament as well as other major sporting events being "typical" events at the tank.

How exactly would the stadium in Fremont actually contribute significant revenue to the city? Are there any studies that show this, or support the benefits you tout?

I am curious as to know what we lost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on June 12, 2009 at 5:35pm

Orlando, 213,223 people, Fremont, 210,837 US American FactFinder". United States Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov and http://www.idcide.com/citydata/fl/orlando.htm

Orlando: 67.3 square miles from http://www.idcide.com/citydata/fl/orlando.htm

Fremont 92 square miles from fremont city page http://www.fremont.gov/index.aspx?nid=146


Be careful about getting anything from Wikipedia, it's as wrong as often as it's right.

Shark Tank info: http://www.sjeconomy.com/publications/pressreleases/ei.hp.pavilion_...


Jon said:

Michael --

Where do you get your facts?

Orlando (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando,_Florida):

Area
- City 101.0 sq mi (261.5 km2)
- Land 93.5 sq mi (242.2 km2)
- Water 7.5 sq mi (19.3 km2)

Fremont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont,_California):

Area
- Total 92 sq mi (225.6 km2)
- Land 76.7 sq mi (198.6 km2)
- Water 10.4 sq mi (27.0 km2)

Budgets (taken from the published budgets before any changes due to the current economic crisis)

Orlando Budget for 2008/09 -- $926M
Fremont Budget for 2008/09 -- $147M

City Staffing (taken from published budgets)

Orlando -- 3411 employees
Fremont -- 920 employees

Orlando Sworn Police Officers -- 757
Fremont Sworn Police Officers -- 188 (http://www.fremontpolice.org/alarm/faq.html)

Likewise, where have you gotten your facts about the Shark tank? I have seen the April 2008 Economic Impact Analysis that predicts $190M of economic impact from the tank, but that was premised upon revenues brought in via the NCAA tournament as well as other major sporting events being "typical" events at the tank.

How exactly would the stadium in Fremont actually contribute significant revenue to the city? Are there any studies that show this, or support the benefits you tout?

I am curious as to know what we lost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by fremonter on June 12, 2009 at 5:44pm

Yes, Michael, I think you have made it abundantly clear that you believe that all FCN members were and remain biased and slanted in an anti-stadium way. But don't you see that all we're doing here is basically bickering over a corpse? It's over, terminado, Écouter, gone to the big league in the sky.

I know this is very hard to accept. Having survived eight years of the most recent Bush administration, I know what it's like to think that things will never get any better, but the good news is that nothing is so constant as change, and there is a rhythm and balance to all things. Depending on how far back you want to go, we had to have Clinton, so we could have Bush 2; we had to have Bush 2 so that we could have Obama; we have to have Obama so that the pendulum can eventually swing back the other way. See how it works? Hang in there.

Lastly, speaking solely for myself and not in any way on behalf of FCN, my pride in Fremont is not based on whether or not we have professional sports in any form, or any other specific large business, for that matter. I reject the concept that we are somehow not good enough, that we must overcome some kind of generalized inferiority complex, that our raison d'être is simply to bring more people here by whatever means necessary, that there is something inherently wrong with being a place that people pass through, that we are somehow lessened if we do not offer to people who do not live here something that they want to see. Fremont has the potential to be more than a sideshow. We should not exist primarily to gain the approval of anyone other than those who live here, and our decisions should be made with the input of residents and for their benefit.

Having said that, I am takin' the cure, weaning myself yet again off the wackie tobaccie of stadium debate. You'll have to find somebody else with whom to re-hash the minutiae of what might have been. I'm making a choice to look forward; I hope you will too. Take care, be well, adios!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on June 12, 2009 at 6:27pm

Fremonter, yes, it's over.

I'm assuming that if someone just plowed into your car on the street, you'd just say: "it's over, no problem, let's move on." I doubt it. We are arguing over what the FCN did to the rest of Fremont without even letting all the studies be done and negotiations be complete.

A better metaphor would be that the team has gone, and taken all that money and those jobs and gone to San Jose. This is no trivial thing my friend, it was, in my mind, a terrible injustice done the the whole of Fremont by a small group with impunity.

I don't believe in the pendulum. Sure things swing back-and-forth sometimes, but I don't share a belief in any Karma-istic fate. You raise an interesting point about Bush. the fact that we had him, you say means we can have Obama. I say Bush just about killed this country and I'm not letting that slide by on the "let it go" mantra. People need to be responsible for what they do. Regardless of whether we now have Obama or not, Bush royally hosed this country and thousands of people lost their lives (and jobs) as a result. I'm not a big fan of sweeping things like this under the rug as you apparently are since we now seem to have a decent president. That doesn't make it all OK. One of the problems with this country (and apparently this city) is that people are scared to confront.

I do not accept that the pendulum will ever have to swing back to where Bush was. Hopefully you will too, rather than just say "that's the way it goes" and go on as your president does things in your name that are abhorrant.

You either want a vibrant growing city or you want a stagnant static one. Your position that we don't have to do this or that for people who don't live here is interesting in an isolationist way. How do we make Fremont grow, especially in these economic times? If you think that Fremont doesn't need to be competitive with the surrounding areas, you are sorely mistaken. It's simple economics. The more money you bring in, the more money you have for schools, parks, and general welfare of the people. If your neighbor towns get that money, they get those benefits, and your property values drop and your schools fall back, etc, etc.

If you have pride in Fremont, why is it? What about Fremont gives you pride? Is it the Hooters? Maybe it's the movie theater (oh, we don't have one, that's right), what about the ..... I can't think of anything else. Maybe it's all the unoccupied offices in the tech parks, or the schools that are falling apart. We have a beautiful new school near our house oh yes.. it's in Union City!

Unless you want jobs, schools, parks and fire departments, I guess there is nothing wrong with being a place that people just pass through. You even have to pass through your own town since you need to leave it just to see a movie or go to a nice restaurant.

I don't see how you just choose to give up on the city.

You can leave the conversation, and good luck to you. I just hope that someday you look back and see that the promise of Fremont has become the Compton/Bellflower/Downey of Northern California and you take some responsibility for trying to keep Fremont a place people don't want to come to.

Sayonara


fremonter said:

Yes, Michael, I think you have made it abundantly clear that you believe that all FCN members were and remain biased and slanted in an anti-stadium way. But don't you see that all we're doing here is basically bickering over a corpse? It's over, terminado, Écouter, gone to the big league in the sky.

I know this is very hard to accept. Having survived eight years of the most recent Bush administration, I know what it's like to think that things will never get any better, but the good news is that nothing is so constant as change, and there is a rhythm and balance to all things. Depending on how far back you want to go, we had to have Clinton, so we could have Bush 2; we had to have Bush 2 so that we could have Obama; we have to have Obama so that the pendulum can eventually swing back the other way. See how it works? Hang in there.

Lastly, speaking solely for myself and not in any way on behalf of FCN, my pride in Fremont is not based on whether or not we have professional sports in any form, or any other specific large business, for that matter. I reject the concept that we are somehow not good enough, that we must overcome some kind of generalized inferiority complex, that our raison d'être is simply to bring more people here by whatever means necessary, that there is something inherently wrong with being a place that people pass through, that we are somehow lessened if we do not offer to people who do not live here something that they want to see. Fremont has the potential to be more than a sideshow. We should not exist primarily to gain the approval of anyone other than those who live here, and our decisions should be made with the input of residents and for their benefit.

Having said that, I am takin' the cure, weaning myself yet again off the wackie tobaccie of stadium debate. You'll have to find somebody else with whom to re-hash the minutiae of what might have been. I'm making a choice to look forward; I hope you will too. Take care, be well, adios!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on June 12, 2009 at 7:38pm

Wikipedia can very well be the fountain of inaccurate knowledge :-)

However, the US Census Bureau identifies Orlando as encompassing 93 square miles as well. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1253000.html

I think that that is fair authority.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion