Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Bogus Poll Shows Support for A’s Move to San Jose
Politics / People / Business / Sports Robert Gammon — Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM
A new poll out of San Jose appears to show strong support for the Oakland A’s planned moved to the South Bay. But on closer reading, the wording of the poll suggests that it was designed to produce the results it got. According to the Mercury News, the poll shows that 62 percent of San Jose residents would favor giving the Oakland A’s public property for a new stadium as long as taxes aren’t raised. But the poll apparently didn’t inform respondents that San Jose will have to give the A’s more than just free land in the deal, thereby making the poll’s results highly questionable and punching a large hole in any claim that it proves that San Jose residents would vote in favor of the A’s moving to their city.
A’s co-owner Lew Wolff has made it clear that he wants the City of San Jose to also pay for infrastructure improvements needed for the stadium, which could amount to tens of millions of public dollars. Although the money likely would come from redevelopment funds and would not require a tax increase, the expenditure of huge amounts of public funds could render the deal much less palatable to San Jose voters — particularly if the A’s move encounters a well-financed opposition. And that likely will happen, because any move to San Jose will surely be opposed by the San Francisco Giants because they own the territorial rights to the South Bay.
The issue is key because a move to San Jose requires a vote of San Jose residents. Oakland, by contrast, also is proposing to give the A’s free land and pay for infrastructure improvements with redevelopment money, but such a move would not need a vote of city residents.
The San Jose poll also apparently failed to inform voters of the value of the public land that the city plans to give to the A’s. Reportedly, the total cost of acquiring the 14-acre property will amount to about $46 million in taxpayer funds.
So why didn’t the pollster ask a more realistic question? Such as, “Would you support giving the A’s public land that the city paid $46 million to acquire, plus spend tens of millions of dollars more in redevelopment funds for infrastructure needed for the team’s new stadium — as long as it does not include raising taxes?” Had the newspaper done so, it never would have gotten 62 percent of residents to say yes.
The poll was conducted by San Jose State University’s highly respected Survey and Policy Research Institute, but the question was written by the Bay Area News Group, a division of the newspaper chain MediaNews, which owns the Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune, and the Contra Costa Times. Which leads one to believe that the owners of Oakland’s hometown daily may not mind a bit if the A’s move to a city where it also owns a newspaper.
Correction
An earlier version of this post improperly imputed a motive to the poll's less-than-transparent wording. Although we continue to believe that the poll's results are not an accurate depiction of how San Jose voters would greet such a proposal, we overreached when we stated that "the wording of the poll indicates that it was designed to produce the results it got." Inasmuch as that was our own inference and was not confirmed by reporting, we should have said "the wording of the poll suggests that it was designed to produce the results it got." We also stated that the poll was paid for by the newspaper when in fact the Merc's story only stated that the newspaper wrote the poll question.
Comments (4)
Showing 1-4 of 4
Oakland had it's chance years ago and did nothing but sell off any plausible site to real estate developers who had ties to the Mayor's office and other city council people.
The A's have been long neglected despite numerous winning seasons and bringing Oakland 4 World Series titles.
They don't deserve a baseball team period while San Jose is the 9th largest city in the US and the largest in the Bay Area at over 1 million people.
San Jose residents support their teams; just ask the Sharks who are beloved and its HOCKEY for crying out loud in a warm weather city.
San Jose residents will not agree to a tax increase but to donate land and use redevelopment funds to maintain it is not an issue.
Also there are several businesses over 500 million in revenue per year in the area while Oakland has a fraction of that in its vicinity. Corporate sponsorships and selling luxury suites will be not an issue and the Giants cannot complain as they already got their sponsorships intact from years ago.
I am a long time Giants fan and A's fan but root for the Giants if they are playing each other. I am also from San Jose and would never buy season tix to either team as they are too far for me to commute it.
If the A's move to San Jose I already got 5 friends who will split tickets since it is so nearby and will support the team.
Only difference is when the Giants come to town I will be rooting for the San Jose A's and not them....
like
dislike
JeffAugust,
Just because the A's might pay a lease, does not make the poll valid. A basic axiom of any reliable poll of this sort is to ask a tough question. The reason is simple. Opponents of the plan will complain loud and hard about the use of public funds, and voters might change their minds after they hear those complaints.
Moreover, just because the city has plans to turn the area into a transit hub, doesn't mean people would still want to spend millions of public funds on the infrastructure specifically needed for the baseball stadium. You need to ask them that question to know for sure.
A tough poll question, in short, really gauges voter support. Because if they they still say yes after hearing your opponents best argument, then you know you have a pretty good shot at winning. But, unfortunately, based on this push poll, San Jose really has no idea how voters will vote.
I have to say, this is beneath you Mr. Gammon. I love reading your stuff but the infrastructure improvements you are talking about here are required regardless of a baseball stadium. The area is going to be a transportation hub for Pete's sake.
And as the other commenter noted, the A's would be paying an annual lease on the land plus possessory tax on the stadium.
Seems like maybe you have a dog in the fight all of the sudden after covering the whole stadium saga so bias free for the past few years. Disappointing to say the least.
Author Archives
-
Jerry Brown’s Optimism Has Been Costly
- May 18, 2012
-
A’s Planned Move to San Jose Looks Dead
- May 17, 2012
- More»
