Protest: The Sunshine Law

Dear Mr. Diekmann,

As we near the deadline for EIR submissions, I would like to lodge a formal protest regarding the handling of this Alternate Proposal Plan for the ballpark in Warm Springs. Please add this to the ball park EIR.

1. The residents of Fremont were not made aware of the Alternate Site, much less it being considered as a serious probability. Evidence for this is clear as I for one only found out last week, and the nearly 2000 flyers we distributed last weekend were met with resounding surprise. If this is such a benefit for Fremont, why are we not letting the residents aware? I do not believe that mentioning our site as an alternative in line "q" of a proposal addressed to the council is "sufficient" notice.

2. The level of scoping on this issue as pertains the residents is also uniformly insufficient. Monday's (12/8) last minute presentation of the alternate site (one day before the council's decision to study the alternate site) was neither informative, nor did it suffice as a "forum". Questions and replies were given to individuals and unavailable for public notice, much less debate. A few maps posted on a wall with only two city representatives (speaking to individuals), for a couple of hours does not qualify as "public scoping", even if you do leave comment sheets. I cannot say how long the "event" was on the schedule, but I only found out about the meeting that day, and only from concerned neighbors.

3. The Sunshine Law and Brown Act requires that all materials and conversations (written and verbal) regarding this proposal be made public and available for review. After repeated requests, we have yet to receive copies of (or opportunities to view) all reports currently on file regarding the ballpark project. On such short notice, ten days from "scoping" to the deadline for inclusion in the EIR, you are clearly not giving the public a chance to find out about the proposal, much less object.

What provisions have been made for financial responsibility from the A's, if the projects overrun the A's budget (as projects are apt to do) with the project incomplete?
What happens if the parts they haven't paid for are the parts that remediate city concerns? Can you make them bond the necessary city improvements, and the possible future remediations?
Will the A's be held responsible for the cost of additional infrastructure (surface roads, overpasses, exit ramps, sewers, water, electric, city services (labor)) after the initial construction of the project?
Since the major attraction is being cited as the BART access, can the project be held off until the completion of BART (best time frame still after 2014)?
Without BART, the traffic issues raised by the CATELLUS independent EIR will remain whether at Pacific Commons or Warm Springs. They might be worse because it will cause gridlock through the town as well as the highways--impacting all Fremont businesses in the Warm Springs and Irvington Districts.
Please extend the deadlines for the EIR submissions and hold a PUBLIC FORUM so that the residents of Fremont can learn of the proposal, ask questions, and express their concerns over the possible impact on their lives before you impose this decision upon us.

Kind Regards,

NAME

ADDRESS

Comments To Environmental Impact Report

We are home owners and residents in the City of Fremont. Here are our comments and questions to be included in the scope of the Draft EIR on the A's proposed Ballpark proposal. My questions and comments are specifically focused on the alternate proposed site at Osgood and South Grimmer Boulevard (“alternate site”).

• Aesthetics
• The project will change the visual characteristics of the neighborhood. The Warm Springs neighborhood consists of low-rise residential and retail and office buildings. As ballpark stadiums are iconic structures, this will impact the feel and visual character of a residential neighborhood. The sheer size and mass of the ballpark structure will overpower the neighborhood.
• Population, Employment, Housing 
• This area is in extremely close proximity to residential neighborhoods and several local public schools, daycares and kid-camps.  
• We believe that this construction of a 32,000-capacity ballpark in such close proximity of a quiet, residential neighborhood will change the fabric of this neighborhood by changing the demographic characteristics of this neighborhood. By changing the demographics of this community, there will be demand for changes to the local entertainment and other services, for example, increase in demand for alcohol serving establishments open late at night. This will divide an established community, as this area will no longer be an attractive, safe place for Fremont families to live and bring up their kids in.  We believe that this will have an adverse impact on the local community.
• “City leaders in the United States devote enormous public resources to the construction of large entertainment projects, including stadiums, convention centers, entertainment districts, and festival malls. Their justification is that such projects will generate economic returns by attracting tourists to the city. Although this economic expectation is tested in the literature, little attention is given to the political and social implications of building a city for visitors rather than local residents. A focus on building the city for the visitor class may strain the bonds of trust between local leaders and the citizenry and skew the civic agenda to the detriment of fundamental municipal services.” Research reference include Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, 316-333 (2000) DOI: 10.1177/107808740003500302, The Politics of Bread and Circuses, Building the City for the Visitor Class, Peter Eisinger Wayne State University.
• The alternate site is in extremely close proximity to residential neighborhoods and local schools (such as Weibel, Warm Springs Elementary, Leitch Elementary, Mission Valley Elementary, Horner, Hopkins, Irvington and Grimmer Elementary) and much less than that for local parks (example Aqua Caliente). What will be the impact to crime rates in the neighborhood after the ballpark has been built? What are the crime rate statistics in the Oakland ballpark area?
• What will be the impact on local schools and child-care facilities of the ballpark serving alcoholic beverages in such close proximity?  
• Recent research has also shown that the average price of home near a ballpark declined after ballpark construction. Will you impact assessment include loss of property due to decline in home values. Research referenced THE IMPACT OF STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT IN DALLAS-FORT WORTH CAROLYN A. DEHRING 1, CRAIG A. DEPKEN 2 MICHAEL R. WARD 3,* 1 Dehring: Assistant Professor, Department of Insurance, Legal Studies and Real Estate, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. Depken: Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina–Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.  3 Ward: Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019.

• Transportation and Circulation – We believe that this project will have an adverse impact on traffic, circulation and parking patterns in the project vicinity:
• The report from the A’s entitled: Revised conceptual site plan and revised mitigation measures, dated November 2008, estimates that the average attendance will be 26,000 people, leading to an increase in approximately 11,000 cars in the freeways and exits leading to the ballpark. (This is based on an estimate of 2.5 people per car). What is this estimate of 2.5 persons per car based on? 
• We believe that the number of cars & trucks will be higher as there will also be traffic resulting from employees of the ballpark, vendors and suppliers (including 18-wheeler trucks) to the ballpark, increased buses and taxis serving the area on game-days. This additional traffic has to be added to traffic assessment.
• This area is served by I-680 and I-880 with three primary exits: AutoMall, Stevenson and Fremont Boulevard. In the report from the A’s entitled: Revised conceptual site plan and revised mitigation measures, dated November 2008, it is noted that traffic from I-680 will be directed to use I-880 North. This area is already severely congested and especially so during peak commute time. For example, it takes approximately 20 mins currently to travel from I-680 Mission exit to the I-880 interchange currently. The traffic conditions during events, such as Fry’s Black Friday Sale, are so adverse that there has been an ambulance on stand-by. Majority of the internal city roads from these exits leading up to the alternate site are single lane roads or in a few cases, or double lanes. How will these exits and roads handle approximately 11,000 more cars during game time which coincides with weekday, peak, office traffic.
• We are concerned that the additional traffic generated by the usage of the ballpark during weekday games will cause severe traffic delays on I-880 and I-680 freeways as well as on local streets such as South Grimmer, Paseo Padre, Auto Mall Parkway and Fremont Boulevard. These delays will prevent working parents from picking up their kids from schools and childcare centers on time.
• Additionally, there will be people who use surface streets to bypass the congestion on I-880 and I-680 (for example, Warm Springs Boulevard, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre, Mission Boulevard) – these streets are internal city streets and are not equipped to handle huge amounts of game-time traffic.
• The report also mentions that there would be road closures, to prevent game-attendees from coming into the residential areas – these barricades would be staffed by security personnel to allow access by residents.
• How will you monitor who is a local resident? How will you prevent ballpark visitors from seeking free parking on residential streets?
• What about the guests of local residents including caretakers for their kids, disabled residents and local daycare service providers? How will they be able to go through the barricades?
• This will cause undue delays and is NOT going to mitigate the traffic congestion as the game –attendees will be clogging the streets getting to the residential areas.
• People seeking future employment in this neighborhood will be dissuaded by the traffic congestion and this will have an adverse impact on the economy of this area.
• Fremont residents will be prisoners in their homes (or out of their homes) during ballpark usage days.
• Please provide us with a copy of the Prologis/Catellus Traffic impact report discussed during the Council Meeting on Dec 9th, 2008.
• The adverse traffic issues identified by ProLogis/Catellus alternate traffic study will also apply to the alternate site as the same freeways and exits serve the alternate site. If ProLogis was not able to mitigate all the concerns, how will the City of Fremont be able to address or mitigate the concerns?
• What is the current Level of Service for the exits and roads coming into the proposed ballpark area? How will the Level of Service degrade as a result of ballpark usage? What will be the penalties to the A’s for vehicular delays in excess of defined Level of Service? Will these penalties be given to the residential neighborhoods impacted by the ballpark?
• Will there be an independent, third-party arbitrator appointed to hear citizen’s concerns and complaints regarding vehicular delays and other issues regarding noise/pollution as laid out below? Who will pay for this arbitrator?

• Air Quality
• Construction of the ballpark will increase significant dust, exhaust and organic emissions LESS THAN 0.5 MILES FROM HOMES, SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES.
• Air-quality will be degraded by diesel-powered equipment and vehicles which will be heavily used during the construction and operation of the ballpark
• Even after the construction, there will be emissions concentrations through increased traffic and– especially so close to homes, schools and local parks.
• This will have a potential impact through increase in asthma, bronchitis and other related respitorial illnesses in Fremont’s kids and seniors.  Odors from the ballpark food facilities and other restaurants will also affect air quality. This will have an adverse impact on the health of Fremont’s kids and seniors. There are already several days annually when air pollution exceeds the state or federal air quality standards (from Bay Area Air Quality Management) in Alameda county, this will only serve to increase the pollution.

• Noise and Light pollution
• Noise from the stadiums public address system, activities and crowd noise will disturb peace in this quiet neighborhood and its close proximity to homes and schools and daycares will definitely exceed the short-range noise quality standards for a residential neighborhood.
• Additionally, fire-work displays will increase noise and pollution.
• Noise impact form concerts and other activities in the stadium on off-game days would be significant and unavoidable.
• Additionally, lighting from night-time operation of the stadium will increase light and glare (“light pollution”) in the predominantly residential neighborhood.
• Additionally, will the structure block the sun/natural light to our schools and homes?

• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Where will the stadium get its supply of water? What will be the impact on the water pressure to surrounding homes?
• What will be the impact on water quality and will discharge requirements be met? How much will the City of Fremont pay to set up the water and drainage requirements?
• Will it require relocation of our existing electric substation? Who will be paying the costs for any infrastructure changes required by the ballpark.
• What will be the City investment for water, electric substation and garbage removal for the ballpark?

• Infrastructure, Utilities and Public Services
• What will be the increase in Police and fire department personnel during ballpark usage days?
• What is the cost of additional staff required to maintain level of service? Who will pay the additional cost? What if increase in staff is needed to maintain the level of service? Who will approve the increase and who will pay for the increase?
• There are concerns about existing services provided by Fremont police and Fire – there will certainly be a degradation of service levels due to additional demands of the ballpark. How will the City of Fremont address these concerns?

• OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

1.    What are the criteria used by the City Council to build an iconic commercial landmark such as a ballpark in the alternate site, a site in extremely close proximity to several residential neighborhoods and schools and child-care facilities?

2.    Is there a detailed study on the revenues that the city will earn and what are the tax breaks/concessions that City will grant the A's? Can we have a copy of the City’s projected Profit-and-loss-Report for the ballpark updated?

3.       Page II-7 of BallPark Village Economic Analysis Report says the following:

Ballpark. The Athletics intend to purchase the land for the ballpark and then enter into a long-term arrangement with the City of Fremont and Alameda County to ensure that the team remains in Fremont for the next 30+ years. Under the terms of this arrangement, the Athletics will be responsible for the cost and development of the new ballpark subject to limited negotiated assistance from the City and County.

The Athletics intend to pay the City of Fremont an annual amount of $1,000,000 per year in order to further support City services with regard to the Ballpark Village project. The Athletics will be responsible for all costs associated with the direct operation the ballpark throughout the term of the arrangement without any on-going financial obligations required of the City and County to maintain the ballpark.

What does the “limited negotiated assistance from the City and County” imply? Please give a detailed breakup of all assistance to be provided for the ballpark construction and maintenance. 

4.    The new proposal of building the ballpark at the alternate site is decoupled from the original ballpark village project that comprised of residential, retail and elementary school. What will the A's invest in Fremont for its development and growth?

5.    Has the City considered revenues from other types of developments like, commercial buildings, retail establishments or residences in the same location? What would be the return on these compared to the ballpark. Please share the detailed analysis with the residents of Fremont. Also, who will be responsible for the preparation of such analysis – will these be prepared by an independent, reputable third-party. 

6.    What happens if Oakland A’s go bankrupt and ask City for assistance in the maintenance of the ballpark in the future? What kids of risk-mitigation measures or insurances will the City of Fremont take-out to prevent usage if taxpayer money to maintain the ballpark.

7.    Does the current downturn in economic climate factor into decisions by local businesses to set up establishments here to provide increased revenues to the city?

8.       Table III-4 of BallPark Village Economic Analysis says the following:

ATHLETICS FRANCHISE 2005 EMPLOYMENT And Employee Residence By County

Total Payroll in 2005 $10,891,862

Total Payroll (2007 $s)  $11,305,613

Total Employment 432 100.0%

Employee Residence Number Percent

Home County Alameda   207   47.9%

This shows only 47% of payroll IS generated in Alameda county (and not EVEN Fremont specifically). What is the plan for current A’s employees, who presumably reside in cities other than Fremont? Will there be a lay-off of existing employees from other cities with new Fremont employees hired? If not, then how will this increase employment for Fremont residents? Also, what percentage of payroll will actually flow to Fremont city coffers?

9.    What type of jobs will the ballpark create? How many of these jobs will be held for Fremont residents? Research by experts on economics and public policy concur that the benefits provided by such a stadium to a community are often inaccurate and unrealistic. For example, the great majority of the jobs that the stadium creates will be part-time, sporadic, temporary, low-wage, non-union jobs, not the type of jobs the city needs.

10. The A’s and their economic consulting firm ERA have presented their study titled “Analysis of the ECONOMIC AND FISCAL REVENUE IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED BALLPARK VILLAGE ON THE CITY OF FREMONT AND THE ECONOMIC BASE OF ALAMEDA COUNTY”. Has the City of Fremont performed an independent evaluation of the economic impact study? For example, the city of Santa Clara appointed Keyser Marston Associates to do an independent study on the San Francisco 49’ers proposal for a ballpark in the city of Santa Clara.

Drop The Stadium Plan NOW

Dear A’s and Fremont city officials, As much as we all love living in the Weibel/Warm Springs neighborhood, I believe that the following issues would drive anyone, including myself, to relocate.  The mere threat of bringing these issues to bear will cause uncertainty, sell-offs, and property devaluation.  Please define exactly how you plan to remediate the following items: Issues:
1)     Is this the best use of the space?
a)     Only 43 game days / year--will sit vacant for 322 days a year –how does this site benefit Fremont when vacant? Does not generate revenue, business opportunities, or ridership on BART when vacant
b)    This project does not have any business, retail or residential component.  Where does the city make money?
c)     business/walking friendly retail/commercial/urban housing will increase BART traffic and bring increased value and revenue to Fremont year round.  This is not part of this proposal and this project specifically precludes such improvements because it uses up all the valuable space around the station.
d)    Only 20% ride BART (when it arrives, possibly 3+ years later); how much space must be dedicated to parking for remaining 24,000+ attendees?  Is there enough space to even consider 10,000 parking spaces?  Am I the only person who does not see this as a ridiculous use of this space?  Where are all these cars going to park…when they finally get to the site?
2)     infrastructure
a)     Fire and police were at my last A's game where a lady had a heat stroke in the row above me.  How often are city services called to respond to incidences at the park?
b)    How many additional fire and police staffing will you pay for on game days?
c)     Hetch Hetchy runs along the site--how are you prepared to deal with water emergencies?
d)    City is very proud of emergency preparedness--how will you evacuate this mob in case of fire/earthquake/flood with the roads locked up?
e)     How will you evacuate rest of community?
f)     Will the impact of 30,000 visitors flushing (water and sewage) in a short time overload our system?
g)    Will you pay to change/improve our water/sewer infrastructure to accommodate?
3)      litter
a)     Wind will carry all the garbage everywhere--can you control the wind?
b)    Litter problem is not controlled at the current site in Oakland—the surrounding area is terrible with litter.
4)     impact to local businesses
	a)     Impassive traffic will shut down local businesses on game days.  How will you compensate them for their loss of revenue?
5)     noise/light pollution
a)     Most of the residences are up hill from site--how do you propose to contain the noise from cars as well as 30,000 people?
b)    Noise and lights are bad enough in the day, but late into the night will disturb neighborhood quality of life.
6)     parking
a)     Are you prepared to construct 15-20,000 parking spaces, if not, where will all these people park?
b)    Clearly, people will try to park in the neighborhood; not only because they don’t want to pay for parking, but also because there won’t be enough parking to accommodate all at the site.  How can you guarantee that our neighborhoods will be off limits?  Will you pay for guards at Paseo Padre/Mission, Grimmer/Mission, Durham/Auto Mall, Arapahoe/Durham?  Will you pay for permitting, meter maids and towing contractors to get them out of our neighborhoods in a timely manner?  How will you keep them out of the other business parking lots on Warm Springs and Osgood?
7)     property values
a)     Please cite one example of a thriving residential neighborhood where values have increased because a ballpark went in within a mile of its doors.
b)    Please cite one example of a ballpark constructed in a residential neighborhood of million dollar homes.
c)     All ballparks we could find are built in areas of business/commerce around other commercial venues to REBUILD economically disadvantaged areas--Arlington, SF, etc. not to decimate established neighborhoods.
d)    A's claim that it will INCREASE property values…how?!  What other comparable sites can you give as an example?
e)     What will happen if A's start winning and fan base grows, again? I have only heard of new parks of 60K seat capacity (e.g. Arlington,TX).  Why are you proposing a stadium of half that size and what will you do if you “outgrow” it?  If you move, what is this stadium good for?  Oakland will be looking at a useless, vacant structure.  Are we next?
8)     safety
a)     We need increased police presence in the neighborhood to ticket/tow, prevent crime, watch for predators at any major “event”; every game will be an “event”—Fremont cannot afford the staff.
b)    Vandalism in our neighborhood will surely increase.  How will you compensate for this?
c)     How will you accommodate fire and police to access the victims in case of emergencies while roads turned into parking lots.
d)    If our few police/fire are busy increasing security in our neighborhood, what happens to rest of city?
e)     How many people get drunk at each of your games?  I've seen drunken misbehavior at very game I've been to.
f)     Eventually, these drunken people get released -- what keeps them from driving? Starting fights? Urinating in our streets?
9)     threat to schools
a)     Weibel Elementary and Agua Caliente Park are <1mile style="mso-spacerun:yes">  Children play unsupervised in these playgrounds at all hours.  What is to keep them from harm?
b)    The reputation of Weibel will deteriorate as our neighborhood becomes less desirable.  This will create a vicious cycle to bring down the value of the neighborhood.
c)     Any new school built on the proposed residential site is also going to be less than a mile away from the potential misbehaviors of ballpark guests.
d)    It is clearly unethical, but is it even legal to sell liquor this close to schools--see safety concerns!
10)  traffic volume on highways
a)     Access on//off highways is insufficient as it is.  New ramps do not relieve congestion at Warm Springs/Mission Blvd or Auto Mall exits.  How will adding 30,000 visitors who all need to get in their seats by at the same time help this situation?
b)    Warm Springs/Mission is banked by commercial—there is no room to increase lanes at this intersection
c)     If BART doesn't come in until 2014, at best, how many more lanes, exit ramps, widened lanes, etc will you need to build to accommodate 30,000 people descending by car?
11)  traffic congestion on surface roads
a)     There is a clear lack of thoroughfares in this area.  Many dead ends, and cul-de-sacs cause people get lost, and roam causing frustration and further congestion.  As one parent noted, there was a shooting in a cul-de-sac precisely because of this reason.
b)    Residential congestion--Paseo Padre, Fremont Blvd, Warm Springs/Osgood and Mission Blvd are the alternate routes north/south in this area.  Already, when 880 & 680 back up (at least one day a week), these roads are gridlocked. Our lights are not timed, and we have had to sit through as many as a dozen light cycles to get through some of these intersections. How will adding 30,000 visitors help this situation?  There is no room to widen, nor do we want to pay for the widening to accommodate 45 days/year.
c)     The FUSD has designated our schools to be in the Irvington area.  This project will block us from picking up our children from school.  Do you have a budget to pay the teachers who will have to stay late to watch them?  The schools will not be able to schedule any events on game days because 40% of its most active students will physically be blocked from attending.  Hope parents and students don’t mind scheduling graduations around game days.
d)    Residents of this area heavily patronize Fremont businesses after work and on weekends.  Our children attend hundreds of local classes and lessons offered in the afternoons/evenings.  If we can’t even get home from work, or leave our homes, none of these things will happen.   Many of these issues cannot be resolved.  Please realize the infesibility of this proposal and drop it now, before we waste more tax-paid hours on the study and discussion of this  impossible proposal. Thank you. Kind Regards,

No Stadium In Fremont

Dear Mayor / City Council members, City Planning (Kelly Diekmann @ k.diekmann@ci.fremont.us)

I am writing to urge you NOT build a stadium in Fremont.  Either proposal is a bad idea.   At a minimum, REMOVE the paragraph for "off-site alternate" from the EIR.

I am requesting the following;

• this letter be included in the EIR report(s) for the stadium proposals.
  
• to see ALL communication (email, voice mail, fax, regular us mail) between the City of Fremont and all other pertinent parties (The Oakland A's, Pacific Commons owners, BART, etc.)", under the provisions of the Sunshine Law.
  

You have already received a litany of negative feedback regarding the impacts of traffic, pollution, crime, drain to city resources, and impact on city residents.   I urge you to look at long term negative impact  to our city financial resources/taxpayer dollars.  FACT:  Fremont is currently running a $6.3 million deficit (source: Fremont News – winter 08).  Adding a ballpark to our city is NOT going to help us.  Please do the same research we (the residents/taxpayers) of Fremont are doing and you will find numerous studies, articles, books from independent sources have all come to the same conclusion.  Building stadiums is a drain on the city/taxpayers that host them.  The only people who seem to benefit from building new stadiums are the team owners.  DO NOT BUILD A STADIUM IN FREMONT.

Below are references to articles, books, etc.  There is much more information available. It all comes to the same conclusion….building stadiums is not beneficial to the city/taxpayers who host the stadium. 

Should you decide to proceed with the ballpark idea please address the list of questions in # 5 below, “Stadium Issues / Questions.”

1.  “As Stadiums Rise, So Do Costs to Taxpayers” -- New York Times, Nov. 2008 www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/nyregion/05stadiums.html 

…the cost to the city of infrastructure…has jumped to about $458 million, from $258 million in 2005… 

“In general, stadiums are not engines for economic development, “said Ronnie Lownestein, the director of the New York City Independent Budget Office.  “Inflating the economic benefits associated with stadiums that typically have only part-time or seasonal employment is missing the point.”

2. Sports Stadium Madness: Why It Started, How to Stop It (summary): http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9474

… A typical sports facility costs local taxpayers more than $10 million a year….and teams routinely claim all revenues from parking and concessions.

According to The Brookings Institution, "a new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. ... [T]he economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus."

3. Long-term Economic Impacts of Stadiums and Sports Teams A Summary of Robert Baade's Work by Janice Houston: http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000623460.cfm?x=b11,0,w

Conclusion:  Baade’s findings suggest that for most cities, Salt Lake included, the tangible economic benefits of hosting a professional sports team and/or constructing a new venue are not the highest and best use of public funds. Very little tangible economic activity is generated from them, unlike road construction or other public works.

4.  Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who's Paying for It,  Mike Weintraub

Proponents of stadiums argue that they generate money for the city. Mike Weintraub debunks that myth in his book Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who Is Paying for it.

5.  Stadium Issues / Questions:

-       Provide a cost/benefit analysis for all site options modeled out 5, 10 years with “what if” scenarios for both good and bad economic times. Stadiums generally go in areas in need of economic redevelopment to improve the area. 

-       How will  the ballpark generate revenue for Fremont, NOW, in the future?

o   How much revenue are you projecting each year?  Based on what facts?

o   FACT:  City is currently running a $6.3 Mil deficit (source: Fremont News – winter 08)

o   Why are you proposing adding more infrastructure which will add costs to the city/taxpayers?

-       Have any tax breaks been given to the A’s if they select Fremont ?

o   If so, provide details of tax exemption and duration.

-       Who pays for the infrastructure to prepare the site for the ballpark (e.g. road improvements/on-going maintenance, water, power, sewer, etc.)?

-       Who currently owns the 240 acres in the area of the proposed Warm Springs Alt. ballpark site?

-       What is current zoning of the Warm Springs site?

-       What zoning is required to build a ballpark?   Serve / consume  alcohol on site?

-       What are our city rules/laws regarding “tailgating” parties (alcohol outside the venue)?

-       How will “tailgating” parties be managed?

-       How many people would be employed at the ballpark during any given game day?

-       How do current ballpark employees typically travel to work?    # by car?      # by public transit?

-       Has anyone talked with Santa Clara leaders involved in the negotiations for the 49’er stadium in their city?   Why have they been unable to create a workable plan? 

-       Have you talked with leaders in other cities who have recently built stadiums?  Did/ have the costs exceeded projections?  WHY?  All the evidence I have found indicates ballparks are NOT a good investment for host cities/taxpayers

-       Traffic congestion / crowds / crime – What is the EXACT plan to channel traffic / manage parking / crime in either venue?

-       Who pays for the personnel to do these jobs (traffic / parking management; crime follow-up)? 

-       IF A’s pay for some of the security personnel what happens when/if A’s ownership changes? What guarantees do we have that new owners will pick-up the tab?

-       Who decides how much security is needed to secure adjacent neighborhoods/retailers?

-       What is the background / training of the security employees? 

-       Are the ballpark security personnel armed?

-       What is the crime rate on game days around the current stadium location?

-       What types of crimes are committed?

-       How many incidents have occurred in the last year?

-       List the crimes committed at each stadium in the last year.

-       What is the conviction rate?

-       Outline, in detail, plans to address all access points to the ballpark at either location (Pac Commons / Warm Spgs)  .

-       Outline, in detail,  the plan to eliminate a travel and / or parking burden to residents who must conduct their regular business on game days at either venue (Pac commons / Warm sprgs) 

Who profits when stadiums are built?  The team owners profit while the citizens pay the bill.  See the following blog for more information.

http://stadiumfacts.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-really-profits.html

Who loses when stadiums are built?  The local residents / taxpayers!

The Politics of Bread and Circuses Building the City for the Visitor Class
Peter Eisinger Wayne State University
City leaders in the United States devote enormous public resources to the construction of large entertainment projects, including stadiums, convention centers, entertainment districts, and festival malls. Their justification is that such projects will generate economic returns by attracting tourists to the city. Although this economic expectation is tested in the literature, little attention is given to the political and social implications of building a city for visitors rather than local residents. A focus on building the city for the visitor class may strain the bonds of trust between local leaders and the citizenry and skew the civic agenda to the detriment of fundamental municipal services.

As a long time resident and taxpayer of this city I urge you to uphold your obligation to us (the residents and taxpayers) and come to the only logical conclusion:   A ballpark in Fremont is a BAD idea.

Sincerely,