Town Square

Post a New Topic

Sharks Ice rink

Original post made by tango on Feb 7, 2012

When all the controversy about the land off of El Charro was the big news, there was a section of land that the San Jose Sharks were interested in. They proposed that they would build an ice sports facility that would give families another way to enjoy some fun and exercise. Now there is all kinds of building going on ,but have heard nothing more about the Sharks ice sports center. What's Up?? Did all the red tape and controversy chase them away.

Comments (20)

Posted by westsider, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 8, 2012 at 12:12 am

Yes.


Posted by Of course it did, a resident of Amador Estates
on Feb 8, 2012 at 8:05 am

Of course it did. We can't have fun stuff for teens in this town (sarcasm) - they need to go to Dublin, San Ramon or Livermore for their fun - ie. bowling, ice skating, rockinjump, roller skating, boomers, the movies. Once again the city let us down. It's all well and good having lovely parks and sports parks etc but what can the teens do in the dark evenings or wet weather in this town.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 8, 2012 at 8:27 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Fun stuff? Look at the controversy created just to replace a boring old grocery store!


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Feb 8, 2012 at 8:50 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Yes, the Sharks were 'discouraged' from setting up a practice facility in town. Instead, we get a 'high end outlet mall' for semi-wealthy shoppers to spend their money. The council must have weighed out the cost/benefit and figured retail would pad their coffers better than a professional sports franschise.
Plus, it helps create a mirror image of the numerous, gaudy retail businesses across the freeway in Dublin. Nice, eh?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 8, 2012 at 9:38 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Steve,

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How were the Sharks discouraged?


Posted by justwondering, a resident of Walnut Hills
on Feb 8, 2012 at 2:27 pm

Steve, the high end retail outlet is in Livermore. I think the problem for the Sharks was that they were being asked to contribute alot to the surrounding park in terms of developing it. It got to the point where it just didn't make business sense anymore for them.


Posted by Steve, a resident of Parkside
on Feb 8, 2012 at 4:48 pm

Stacey, see justwondering's post for some the reasons the Sharks did not choose Pleasanton.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I thought the deal falling through had a lot more to do with the fact that the principle players on the SJAM side had left. FWIW, former Pleasanton resident and PUSD trustee Pat Kernan had been involved in the whole thing too.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 8, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Also, I remember reading that the SJAM lease on the land would have been at a discount. So it would be misleading to say that the City had scared them away by asking them to help pay for development of the park when SJAM would have been getting a cut-rate deal on rent for such a large facility.


Posted by vineyards, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2012 at 9:13 am

This is the climate Pleasanton has created, by nanny raising kids and "above it all" attitudes..welcome to Pleasanton...


Posted by 1 $ Year, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2012 at 9:53 am

The Sharks wanted to build the rink on city park property and pay the city $1 a year in rent. I know you right-wing PW readers love corporate welfare while at the same time fantasizing about returning working people to indentured servant status, but I think even Tea Partiers would question that taxpayer giveaway!


Posted by common sense, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Since the announcer for the Sharks is a resident of Pleasanton ask him why the Sharks chose not be have a facility in Pleasanton. I would guess though the answer is finance related.


Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Feb 10, 2012 at 9:15 am

Corp. welfare? You mean like the auto company (union) bailouts to the tune of billions of dollars, only some of which has been repaid?
That type of corp. welfare? The kind that hands a half a billion $'s to companies like Solyndra? At least the Sharks were negotiating directly with the city to try to come to a mutually agreed upon contract. You cherry picked one assumed component of the terms, ignoring related benefits to other retailiers and services in the area, amongst other benefits.

Somehow, your politicizing this issue points to a small mind with an agenda and no grasp of the bigger picture. The city may have passed up a good opportunity, but let's see what ends up occupying that property. Maybe the mayor can find a 'green' business to bankrupt our city, following the federal govt's model.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 10, 2012 at 11:35 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Steve,

Corporate welfare like a city entering into an entrepreneurial deal with a private company yet taxpayers bearing most of the costs because the full extent of the costs of the deal were not properly analyzed beforehand (or the politicians involved just didn't care). Happens a lot with major cities and professional sports teams. Boy, look at the deal the Raiders got to move back to Oakland. I think Alameda Co. even pitched in to help pay for that one.


Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Feb 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm

True, Oakland really got screwed inthe Raiders deal. I guess our city leaders are to smart to fall for that ploy.
In any case, your comment, 'entering into an entrepreneurial deal with a private company yet taxpayers bearing most of the costs' sounds a lot like the deals I mentioned above.
Maybe Pleasanton dodged a bullet, if the Raiders deal is considered the norm for these types of transactions, but there were lots of political considerations in that city that don't apply here. Like trying to save face for having let the Raiders move to L.A. in the first place.


Posted by westsider, a resident of Highland Oaks
on Feb 10, 2012 at 9:16 pm

@ $1 a year, why don't you tell the rest of the story? The Sharks would've gotten the land for a dollar a year, but in return they would have built a beautiful park for all of Pleasanton to enjoy forever. And after 20 years (30? can't remember exactly) that ice facility would have belonged to Pleasanton free and clear.

Giveaway? Don't think so.


Posted by Lou, a resident of Mission Park
on Feb 11, 2012 at 8:50 am

EBRPD was going to charge California Splash $400,000 per year to rent far less land than what was slated for the four Hockey arenas.

Plus the city was planning to rent for $1 a year for land to a big name corporate sports team.

$1 a year is ridiculous, was ridiculous, and will always be ridiculous.

That is corporate welfare, subsidized by Pleasanton taxpayers, at its worst.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 11, 2012 at 9:32 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Steve,

The City was asking SJAM to provide more details on the costs and they couldn't get SJAM to commit. SJAM "disappeared" and was hardly "discouraged" (at $1 a year!). It was probably better for Pleasanton taxpayers that they did disappear if they weren't willing to bear more of the costs, although I would have personally loved to have a rink here.


Posted by Lugnut, a resident of Carlton Oaks
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:47 am

Yeah but Pleasanton forked over $10 Million for a 250 seat arts compound that I have yet to see if it is profitable. How much is that per seat? What happen to McGovern's Youth Center? Anybody notice in town the streets are going to pot, fire hydrants without replacement caps, but by God we will have a climate plan, and a one less firefighter on fire trucks and traffic backups at the freeway onramps during high traffic hours. Waste money on frills, but let everything else go to "pot" literally. Checked out the drug epidemic in town? Go Dublin, you have the "economic" engine part right but don't like your sprawl.


Posted by Gabby, a resident of Downtown
on Aug 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm

Coming soon to Dublin. Just you wait and see. Way to go Mrs. Hosterman!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 1,105 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 954 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 3 comments | 201 views