Wolff speaks to Fremont Men's Club (Sorry ladies)

Washington Township Men's Club became the talk of the town as Lew Wolff made his presentation to Fremont for a new A's ballpark. But Wolff may have started off on the wrong foot; he made his presentation to the Fremont Men's Club, not Fremont Citizens club or something. Fremont council woman Anu Natarajan "wasn't pleased. 'I don't have a problem with men having men's clubs," she said. "But when Lew Wolff speaks in Fremont for the first time, it was wrong for them to exclude 50 percent of the population.'" Although Vice Mayor Steve Cho felt that Wolff "didn't say anything that wasn't already known," this whole club thing seems a little off. Wolff wants to make friends with the big guns in Fremont, but a men's only club? Gets back to what Wolff does best; partying with fraternity brothers, who wants a keg stand?

"Chose or Lose" meeting this Wednesady

Here's Robert Limon's word:

Hello Everyone,

Let's connect at the UPTOWN for a quick meeting Wednesday at 5.30. The meeting will be very purposeful and should not take over an hour (45 min. ideal).

Here's the agenda:
1. We need to decide on a date for the 1st Tailgate Rally [i think Friday June 30th would be good--it's the A's first game back since June 18th].
2. What is the in stadium demonstration--something cool that people will want to connect with and want to participate in (let's set a trend).
3. Promotion of the Rally.
4. Press relations for the rally.
5. Details and work re: rally.
6. Dates for the next 3 rallys.
7. Other issues?

Lastly, I think it is great that we have Zennie and other leaders so intimate with past attempts to create an A's ballpark solution, but we really need to get our focus on a new A's in Oakland solution. I think a strong arguement for a new ballpark is not going to be simply a good plan, but the three pronged approach of an activitated community, a good plan, and leadership.

So definitely let's learn from that past, and find a way to be complete with that past, but please let's not have the past cloud our creative vision of our future solution.

With that said, bring your creative brilliance and let's meet Wednesday.

Pass the word,

thank you,

Robert Limon

Send emails to choseorloseoakland@yahoo.com if you have questions.

Unofficial Wrap on Chose or Lose Forum

I was really bummed that I missed the meeting, but I'm still in college(damn quarter system). Hopefully Robert Limon will send me his official take on the meeting and some of the movies that he shot, and these will quickly be posted.

I just had a quick conversation with Mr. Limon about how the forum went, and he sounded really happy with the turnout. He said around 70 people showed up, Marine Layer said 50. Either way it sounded great. I'm glad that Rob got the ball rolling, and he was very excited about holding future meetings, rallies, and possibly doing in-stadium demonstrations. Be sure to email him at chooseorloseoakland@yahoo.com to get more information about future events and meetings.

As people have mentioned here and on New A's Ballpark, the key to getting the A's to stay in Oakland is to convince the politicians that there is enough support from the community to back a new stadium. Nancy Nadel felt that we were in the minority, but there is no proof that Oakland citizens are against keeping the A's. Also there are numerous A's fans who have know idea what's going on with the stadium situation, and a little information could get them on our side.

Getting this movement known by the press is also a big deal. Contact your local reporter or editor and let them know what's going on, and that the "Keep the A's in Oakland" movement has officially started. Here's the Oakland Trib email list, the SF Gate Feedback page, the East Bay Express Contact Page, and the Contra Costa Times contact page.

CHOOSE OR LOSE THE A'S

Robert Limon is organizing a forum on the A's plan to relocate, to suggest ways to stop the move and discuss the possibility of a move. I encourage people to attend the forum whether or not you are for or against the Fremont deal. Here's the plan in his own words:

I am a lifelong Oakland community member and A's fan. My friends and I have been frustrated that it is the 11th hour and we are very close to losing the Oakland A's. We are frustrated that no one seems to be expressing our point of view, and no one is taking action to keep the A's. Personally, I think having a world-class championship sports team in our community is a fantastic community resource and asset that benefits our business and property values. I want to see a common sense solution invented by the brilliant minds of Oakland citizens and leaders to facilitate and implement the construction of a new stadium in Oakland.

Now it's YOUR turn to express your opinion on the future of the A's in Oakland.

I have begun a community project and a documentary film called "Choose or Lose the Oakland A's" which is based on giving EVERY Oakland/East Bay community member a chance to voice their opinion whether they choose or lose the A's. Bottom line: The Oakland community needs an outlet to express their perspective to keep the A's in Oakland (or not). No matter how it turns out, I will know that I let my voice be heard.

We are going to kick off this community project with a Mayoral Community Forum on May 23, 2006 (Tuesday) from 5:30-7:30 PM at the Uptown Bar and Nightclub, 1928 Telegraph (at 19th), in downtown Oakland. Please see attached flyer. The future mayor of Oakland will respond to the same question: CHOOSE OR LOSE the Oakland A's? And Why?

I humbly request two things:
1. You show up to this event, share your opinion, and have some FUN.
2. You forward this info and invite all of your friends to this event; and/or contact me to get a flyer and distribute.

Now is the time--Take Action! Seize the Day! Choose or Lose the Oakland A's.

Thank you and best regards,

Robert Limon
chooseorloseoakland@yahoo.com

I can not attend this meeting because I won't be back in the Bay Area until early June, but I urge people to go and participate. Print off some flyers and bring them to the meeting. Copy and send this Robert's message to your friends email.

River Cats fastest to five-million fans

Raley field opened in 2000, and has become one of the most beloved ballparks in the minors. With a seating capacity of a little less than 15 thousand, it only took the fanchise about 6 years to draw their five-millionth fan. The Cats are believed to be the fastest to reach that mark in Minor League history. Nina Muma was lucky 5 million and won two free trips: a ride around the warning track before the game (plus throwing out the first pitch) and a trip to Hawaii. She also won free River Cat tix for a year. Wow Nina! Talk about an ownership that respects and acknowledges it's fans. The people of Sacramento love their Cats and Raley field, and Alan Ledford, River Cats president, has figured out a way to create a really fan-friendly environment in his park. The combination of a competitive team, a decent stadium, and a fan-friendly ownership has made the River Cats one of the most successful minor league fanchises over the last 10 years.

Walter Haas was able to do this. Where Charlie 'O alienated many people and the A's didn't draw well even with a winning team, Haas understood how to deal with the masses and create a personal and friendly environment at his games and with the city. Schott and Hofmann lost that touch, and ran the fanchise into the ground. Wolff has yet to come close to Haas's level, but he shows signs he is capable of having human emotions and wanting to interact with his fans (i.e. sitting with common fans during games and doing interviews during broadcasts). If Wolff wants to reach that level, where fans are loyal to the team whether or not they are winning, he has to show respect and friendliness to the fans, and create an environment at A's games where a game becomes an experience not just another game. He can do this in his new staidum, but...

If Wolff can get a deal done in Oakland, and builds a stadium within the city, he will become a hero and legend among A's fans. Fans will love Lew Wolff and become even more loyal to the fanchise, especially if the park is as he says it will be. It won't matter to fans where he puts the park, next to the Coliseum or downtown, fans will go. If Wolff decides to leave Oakland, even if it's only 20 miles away, many A's fans will be hurt and disappointed, especially the ones that live North of the present Coliseum. The Haas family sold the team at a lower price to a buyer who would promise to keep the team in Oakland; the team has managed to remain the "Oakland" A's so far. The Raley field experience is one to model, and if he builds in Oakland, Wolff will get his name on a jersey on the outfield wall next with Haas.

Sunday CC Times Article Skews Facts

An article was written in the Sunday Contra Costa Times by Steve Gilmore comparing the how really the A's moving to Fremont is similar to a number of professional sports teams moving outside their city to a suburban location, like the New England Patriots, the Detriot Pistons, and the Texas Rangers. He claims that the suburbs work fine for these teams, and claims that "Big city professional sports teams have been thriving in suburban arenas and stadiums for decades."

I do not agree; I wrote an email to Mr. Gilmore and to the editor of the Contra Costa Times contesting the facts and opinions wrote. I wanted to wait to post this blog, until the either Mr. Gilmore or the Times responded, but I have not recieved anything. Here is my email:

Dear Mr. Gilmore(egilmore@cctimes.com),

I feel your article is a manipulation of facts to impose a completely biased argument upon your readers. You say that suburban parks are fine and that"Big city professional sports teams have been thriving in suburban arenas and stadiums for decades." when that is not entirely true, especially not with baseball. Please consider the following faults with your article:

-The Detroit Pistons have had one of the most competitive basketball teams in recent years leading to their dominance in the attendence department. The Palace in the Hills was built in 1988, the next years they won two championships. When the Pistons failed to be competitive in the 1990's their attendence dropped, hitting their low in 2000/2001 when their average attendence was only 14,813. The Coliseum at Richfield- built on country roads between Cleveland and Akron — was the home of the Cleveland Cavaliers NBA team for 20 years. But the arena was difficult to reach and the team moved to Quicken Loans Arena in downtown Cleveland in 1994. The Coliseum was torn down and converted to parkland five years later. The Charlotte Bobcats have just moved into a downtown arena. I feel you need a winning team to support a suburban arena in the NBA.

-As for NFL, there are numerous suburban stadiums that are succesfull, you mention Dallas, the Giants, Jets and Patriots (The Redskins have been succesful as well). But the NFL is completely different from the MLB or the NBA, for the simple fact that there way less games. In the NFL each team plays only 8 home games. That equates to a huge demand for tickets especially if the team is a winning team (i.e. Patriots and Cowboys). It really does not matter where you put a NFL stadium people will go to games regardless. Baseball teams have 81 home games, that a lot of seats to fill in the middle of nowhere.

-As for the MLB, suburban and municipal ballparks are out of fashion, they were a cheap trend in the 1970's through the 1980's as America in general became more suburban. Many major cities, especially industrial cities like Oakland, began to lose jobs and population during this time and so citiess in the 1990's decided to build ballparks in downtown location to draw fans back to the city. Not necessarily to live there but to spend money and spur growth and development around the area(i.e. Baltimore and in recent years Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, SF,etc.). The Ballpark in Arlington is a buck of that trend, and it's had fairly decent results, maybe because of the suburban atmosphere in Texas or because the new ballpark stayed in the same location as the previous one. Yet, when Texas does not have a winning team, the attendance suffers even with a fairly new and nice stadium like Ameriquest Field; in 2003 after A-Rod left the team, attendance dropped to 25,856 and they were below the league average in total attendance. Attendance was up the next year with a 89 win season.

-You say, "Who cares whether a beautiful new A's stadium sits in Fremont rather than Oakland, as long as it's not in Las Vegas, Portland or San Antonio?" But, the A's are not going to leave the Bay Area, anytime soon. There is too much money and TV viewers in the region and it can easily support two teams. In a recent article in the
Hard Ball Times Maury Brown says that cities like Portland, Las Vegas, and San Antonio have a much less Designed Market Areas (i.e. the number of tv households). Also Wolff has been quoted to say, "I've changed my mind," he said Tuesday. "'I don't want to leave California. I don't want to leave this district." The arguement that Wolff might leave the Bay Area is false and misleading. It makes people believe that A's should get their stadium built in Fremont as fast as possible, or else.

-You also say that if the A's move to Fremont South Bay corporations will buy boxes: "A move 20 miles south could help the A's tap into those deep corporate pockets in San Jose and the Silicon Valley. After all, somebody would have to buy luxury suites at a new stadium." Yet in a recent interview with Wolff on FSN during the A's-Yankee game, Wolff was quoted saying, "We'll have 40 4-person suites... The 18 to 20-person suites require a (huge base). If you have a law firm or a family, the 4-person suite makes a lot more sense... Milwaukee is the worst at selling suites, and we found out that the type most in demand there are those smaller suites." That suggests that Wolff doesn't expect South Bay corporations to buy luxury boxes in bulk.

-Finally, You say, "The A's have not drawn well since moving from Kansas City to Oakland in 1968." Where do you get your facts? You're right that the A's didn't draw well during the amazing 70's run, but as you mention that was because fans were alienated by Charlie 'O'. When fan friendly Walter Haas bought the team he turned things around and attendance got better hitting it's peek during the late 80's and 90's during the 'Bash Bros' years. Considering that the Colesium is a suburban style park, it has drawn fairly well even in recent times drawing over 2 million fans the last 5 years. Also consider, while the Giants played at the 'Stick, and the A's played at the Coliseum, the A's outdrew the Giants 10 out of the 17 seasons. If it wasn't for the cheap Schott years the A's in the 90's could have continued to outdraw the Giants.

You are writing for a major paper that is respected and read around the Bay Area; why are you misleading people with these manipulated facts? Thank you for your time.

Drummer510

Fight the Power

Ballparks require a ton of electricity, as we all can imagine. In order to meet the power demands in San Jose, if a new ballpark is built, the city would have to pay $30.8 million to move a Pacific Gas & Electric substation. This coming after the Mercury News poll showed that most San Jose voters oppose using public funds to bring the A's South. This estimate by PG&E is not what voters wanted to hear.

This is why the A's need to stay in Oakland

Macha loosens up at side shows and gets hyphy E-fizzle. A rumor is goin around that Swish was spinnin some O's wit Keak Da Sneak.

San Jose Voters Skeptical of New Park Plan

Although, many San Jose residents would love to see a ballpark in their downtwon, a large group of San Jose voters do not support "spending public funds to bring professional baseball to San Jose..."

"I think there are better places the money could be put,'' said poll respondent Janis Delke, a fourth-grade teacher and Willow Glen resident who said she is surrounded by sons and a husband who play and are fans of sports. ``I'm not against having it here. I just think it's an awful lot of money to soak into something when people are going hungry and people who spend years and years in college are making a pittance compared to what the athletes are making."

Check out the Mercury Poll Results also on the article page; they are very interesting. Mayor Ron Gonzales hasn't been too popular lately. I don't know much about the recent San Jose political scene, but it seems from these polls that, basic city services and improvements are what voters want rather than big civic developments to spur growth. Transportation and traffic was the number problem in San Jose the poll reported, falling into the trend of a number of other Bay Area cities and counties. Do people think the A's still have a chance to be lured to SJ? There is a lot of money down there with a growing entertainment scene, but it seems that Wolff would not only have to contend with Magowan and Selig, but also San Jose voters.

Marine Layer's new A's to Fremont Site gets Publicity

Check out Marine Layer's new site A's Baseball to Fremont. It puts a bad taste in my mouth that a guy who has tried to stay nuetral through this whole affair, has openly made his view known. This website just got some publicity; an article was written Tri-Valley Herald writer Chris De Benedetti describing the new website and that there have been NO new developments in negotiations between Cisco and Wolff. I find it very ironic that a grass roots group is celebrating "Fremont Day" in Oakland at the Coliseum when the A's face off against the Mariners. "Here is a great way for Fremont residents and the Oakland A's organization to show support for each other," Mayor Bob Wasserman said, advocate of the A's deal with Cisco.

This article is another slap in the face of supporters who want the A's to stay in Oakland by Bay Area media. There is no mention of the Oakland Fan Coalition or this blog, which are direct counterparts to Marine Layer's "A's Baseball to Fremont". This article is completely one sided. I've already sent an email to Mr. De Benedetti why don't you: cdebenedetti@angnewspapers.com.

Oakland Mayor Candidate Contact Information

I think it's very important that Oakland voters contact these candidates and ask them about their plans for the city and if it includes the A's. Although, the A's situation is one of many facing Oakland, it's very important that we put pressure on candidates to speak about it.

Ron Dellums
1212 Broadway, 16th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-6016
info@rondellumsformayor.com

The Honorable Nancy Nadel
PO Box 72124 Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 654-6966
issues@nancynadelformayor.com
nnadel@igc.org

The Honorable Ignacio De La Fuente
One City Hall Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510)-238-7005
idelafuente@oaklandnet.com


For people who haven't registered yet to vote
- Click here to register-
It's painless and easy.

A Day in the Life of De La Fuente-Article from East Bay Express

Very interesting and revealing article from East Bay Express by Will Harper. Harper goes one-on-one with IDLF, and hits many of the important points regarding IDLF: the straight-ahead/no B.S. attitude, his blemished history, his son's rape charges, and his stance on important city issues in comparison to Dellums and Nadel. I have to agree Harper, De La Fuente is by and far the most provacative candidate. Long, but great read. I hope the East Bay Express can do an article on each of the candidates.

CC Times writes that "Fans -- not city -- likely to feel biggest void"

Here's an article from Contra Costa Times: A'S, FREMONT NEAR DEAL Fans -- not city -- likely to feel biggest void. CC Times writer Chris Metinko, doesn't really add anything new information to the A's current negotiations with Fremont, he just says that "The A's are said to be in the final stages of negotiating to build a new ballpark in Fremont just off Interstate 880." Metinko gets opinions from some A's fans (Of course, none of the fans currently live in Oakland), about what they think of the team moving to Fremont. One guy says ".. It just doesn't seem right (if they leave). It would be a big deal if they went to Fremont."

In the article, Metinko quotes Andrew Zimbalist, co-writer of Sports, Jobs, and Taxes and other sports econmics books, that economic impact of the A's moving would be small. This is true; most of the workers are unfortunately seasonal, and A's fans are not the base of much business around the Coliseum. The Coliseum isn't a big money maker for the City of Oakland.

Metinko also contends that there is no proof that a sports team is beneficial finacially, quoting Phil Porter:

"Sports teams are not economic engines," Porter said. "Teams love to tell people they bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy. But the fact is there is no proof that is true. The money people spend on baseball is discretionary income. If they didn't spend it on baseball, they would spend it on other activities. Those other activities are likely to keep more of that money in the local economy than Major League Baseball is."

This is true, there is no proof. Andrew Zimbalist, in his book Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, agrees that there is no proof that a sports team itself is beneficial for a city, but argues that it can be beneficial if a stream of new economic activity is created by the stadium investment(p58-59). In Fremont's case, Wolff plans to build a stadium in a empty lot with no previous economic growth around the location. Fremont is hoping that a stadium will bring in new business and growth, I don't see this happening because most of the economic growth will be happening in Wolff's Ballpark Village. The city of Fremont will not be making any money from this deal; if they do make money from new business's popping up, the profits will be offset by the dealing with transportation issues surrounding the site and the cost of maintaining clean and safe streats around the stadium. Also, unless the ball park village is a complete success, I don't see people going to shop Fremont during the offseason, because of the lack of other entertainment and attractions in the city.

I sent an email to Andrew Zimbalist a couple weeks ago asking him what he though of the current Fremont stadium situation. He kindly replied:

(Dummer510), I don't have srong feelings about it. Wolff is seeking a
creative solution to the stalemate in Oakland and the conflict w/ Magowan over San Jose. Depending on the details of the prospective deal, and the extent to which Wolff succeeds in attracting clientele from greater San Jose/Silicon Valley, I think it could have a salutary outcome for the A's, as well as for the town of Fremont which stands to pull in outside income. The problem to overcome, of course, is that baseball in the suburbs is an old concept. What will happen to the corporate dollars to buy luxury suites, club seats and signage. 81 games is a lot seats to fill in the burbs. Part of the success or failure will be dependent on what kind of team Wolff builds and how well he promotes. Oakland certainly hasn't been a gold mine. I'd say that I am cautiously optimistic.
Andy Zimbalist

He has it right, Wolff is going to have to rely on "corporate dollars", for his stadium to be a real succuess, because "81 games is a lot of seats to fill in the burbs". As I've said before, I feel that "fringe" and "bandwagon" fans (people who maybe aren't the biggest baseball fans, but enjoy going to games especially if it's a new ballpark) will not be as big on going to games in the burbs as going to one in a downtown location with other entertainment, shops, and restuarants.

Metinko ends his article, by quoting Porter who says that the city of Oakland could come out on top... "if the A's keep the name 'Oakland'". Just by looking at recent history between A's owners and the City of Oakland, I highly doubt that the name 'Oakland' will be kept.

You can email Chris Metinko at cmetinko@cctimes.com

Berkeley Daily article about Race in the Oakland Mayoral Election

The article is written by J. Douglas Allen-Tayor and he brings up some interesting point about Christopher Heredia's last Chronicle aritcle "Oakland Mayor Rivals each woo voters in own particular ways Oakland hills residents could be the race's decisive constituency". Heredia's mediocre analysis of how race and gender could effect the election, Douglas says "May only serve to obscure what’s going on in the Oakland mayoral race." Douglas also brings up the point that Heredia fails to mention Oakland fairly large Asian population or it's white population; "Given Oakland’s fairly even division of races and gender, the winning candidate for mayor must pull together a coalition that crosses many lines."

Douglass also contends that the Mattier and Ross article Brooks’ City Funds Helped Spur Dellums Run "seems deliberately designed to lead us in the wrong direction." Dellums's history still is a little foggy, and he has been reluctant to explain. But Douglass brings up a good point that Bay Area press are trying to find any signs of foul play in this election, and rightfully so, but also have manipulated some facts it seems.

Sharks don't want A's in San Jose Downtown

Article from Mercury News, "Ballpark impact analysis elicits many complaints"

Many in San Jose including Sharks Officials complained that a downtown ballpark will make transportation, traffic, and parking crazy, and want San Jose city officials to re-evaluate their $700,000 analysis of the area. San Jose would be a great place for a ball team, but it seems that many citizens of San Jose and businesses question a ballpark, for various reasons; transportation, traffic, parking, etc. being some of them. The citizens San Jose would also have to vote on a ballpark unlike Fremont, which can by-pass a vote. Also keep in mind that the Giants do have territorial rights in San Jose and moving any team to that area would mean dealing with Selig, who has said numerous times that he is against challenging the Giants. A ballpark in San Jose seems even less likely than one in Oakland.

Also an article was written today by Dave Newhouse, who reiterated Oakland Mayor candidates opinions on the A's stadium situation.

The 2006 Oakland Mayoral Race- The Candidates

It's been eight years of Jerry Brown, and the city of Oakland has made great strides in housing and busines development. But city services have seemed lacking and the beaucracy in the Oakland city council and goverment seem out of control at times. It's been an interesting eight years under Mayor Brown; he brought back Oakland from totally finacial collapse and has help fuel the growth in Oakland downtown and Jack London, and although violent crime rates lowered the homocide rates in Oakland continued to rise under his supervision (In part because of popular side shows). Jerry Brown has also been criticized for his failed arts promises. Brown has been against a new ballpark, "When then-city manager Robert Bobb pushed hard for a ballpark in the uptown area, Brown pressured him to leave. Bobb went to Washington, D.C., which is building a new park for the relocated Montreal Expos, now the Washington Nationals. ." (SF Gate)People have always had mixed opinions of Jerry Brown, but I think he would make a decent Attorney General.

The Mayor race has come down to its final weeks. All three main candidates, Ron Dellums, Ignacio De La Fuente, and Nancy Nadel, have stated their opinions and views on issues. All three bring their own things to the table and draw from different crowds.

Ron Dellums:
-Born in Oakland in 1935, attended Oakland public schools, and went to school at UC Berkeley in addition to other Bay Area colleges.
-He was/is involved in Social Work, especially homelessness.
-Was elected as a U.S. Representitive for the House of Congress in 1971 and served until 1999. Biggest accomplishment in Congress was leading the sanctions against the apartheid in South Africa.

-Decided, in October 2005, to run for Mayor of Oakland, because of a strong push and support from activists;"'I answered the call,' Dellums said. 'This was not personal ambition. This was not desire. This was not planned. It was spontaneous on the people's part, and it was spontaneous on my response.'"Some question his motivation to be mayor.
-Dellums promotes that he is for the people of Oakland, and wants to represent them, yet has made few public appearences since announcing his campaign.
-Dellums is for Oakland having full control over its public schools, not the state.
-His work as a lobbyist, has been questioned by his oppenents.
-Dellums is big on inclusionary housing in housing development.
+Dellums on the A's stadium situation:
(This is the email he sent me)
"Ron favors a ballpark in Oakland and will do whatever it takes, without
bankrupting Oakland, to keep the A's here.
What Ron has said in many public events and debates is that when he met with Mr. Wolff, the A's owner, to see what he could do to keep the A's that Wolff told him that the current Council and Mayor didn't work with him and that he was eploring other options (like Fremont) because he didn't see feasible options in Oakland.
Keeping the A's is important and won't interfere with my concern for safe streets, schooling, healthcare, and the efficient delivery of city services, unless the city is asked to massively subsidize the A's."
But in a recent April debate, Dellums said flat out that his discussions with Lew Wolff indicated the A's would soon leave the city.

Ignacio De La Fuente:
-Born in Mexico City, in 1949 and immigrated to the U.S. when he was 21.
-He became a union representative in 1977 and has become a big player in union talks and negotiations.
-Was elected to Oakland City Council in 1992, and was a big part of the downtown and Fuitvale revitalization. Mr. De La Fuente Co-chairs the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority.
-De La Fuente has made numerous public appearances, and has been open about his successes and failures in Oakland, especially the bungled deal that brought the Raiders back to Oakland but cost taxpayers millions. He been very straight foward and aggressive in his interviews and debates, causing some people to think he has gone to far.

-De La Fuente feels that housing and business development is key for the city to grow and fund public projects and services. Initially he not include inclusionary housing as part of his campaign, but recently has supported affordable family housing.
-Wants to clean up all the beaucracy that happens in Oakland city services.
-He would be the first Hispanic Mayor of Oakland if elected.
+De La Fuente on A's stadium situation:
Like Dellums, De La Fuente is for keeping the A's in Oakland. He was key on getting the A's to renew their Coliseum lease. In June of 2005, De La Fuente pushed for the Oakland estuary waterfront location, which Signature Properties is building on, but were willing to discuse ballpark possiblities (Nothing happened). De La Fuente probably has the most political leverage to keep the A's in Oakland.

Nancy Nadel:
-Nadel has been a West Oakland resident for 25 years.
-Has been part of the Oakland City Council for 10 years.
-Campaign took a hit when Dellums decided to join mayoral race.
-Nadel wants more progressive city services in education, job training, and safety.
-Is very big on inclusionary housing.
-Says "I know the city very well".

-On the economic front, she promoted a film studio proposed by members of the Wayans family of well-known actors and taking control of the Oakland ports.
-If elected would be the first female Mayor of Oakland.
+Nadel on A's stadium situation:
In October of 2005, Nadel considered the Broadway Auto Row site as a possible location, but two months later the site became slated for construction. De La Fuente and Nadel both say that a ballpark can't be built with public subsidy.

All three candidates have their moments, and their missteps. I don't think anyone is a clear cut favorite. Dellums might be the favorite on paper, because of name recognition, but De La Fuente has made many more public appearances and has been a force on the Oakland City Council, and Nadel might get many votes from women voters. Also to keep in mind is race, Dellums may get more African American votes and De La Fuente Latino votes. It may come down to the voters in the Oakland Hills. Please remind everybody you know to vote.