Sports teams seeking exceptions from environmental laws and rules ...

[Auggie]

Last edited Sun May 12, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

and Sacramento, in most instances, is happy to oblige. From John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle, May 12 2013:

California’s professional sports teams — or developers hoping to attract a professional sports team — know exactly where to go for relief from the state’s often difficult regulatory environment. They take their concerns directly to Sacramento, where state legislators have proved more than willing to offer exceptions to environmental and other rules that apply to everyone else.

I happen to like the idea of the Warriors moving back across the bay to San Francisco, but I questioned why they needed to go to the Legislature to get a finding that their proposed arena at Piers 30-32 is consistent with the “public trust” of preserving access and maritime use along the waterfront. I have no rooting attachment to the Sacramento Kings, but I have to admire the way Mayor Kevin Johnson, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and other community leaders have pushed hard and rallied the community to keep the team from moving to Seattle. That effort, too, will need a little help from the Legislature.

SNIP

If the state regulations are too draconian, shouldn’t they be relaxed for everyone, not just a few favored developers? That question could loom large as legislators consider whether to reform the California Environmental Quality Act so it is not so easily exploited by litigants with motives that have nothing to do with the environment.

LINK: http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2013/05/11/when-the-end-run-goes-through-sacramento/

I happen to favor draconian regulations when the environment is concerned. Furthermore, it should be top priority these new stadiums are easily accessible via public transportation.

[tularetom]

1. Well, why shouldn't they be exempt from environmental regulations too?

The goddamn parasites are already exempt from having to pay for their fucking stadiums or the infrastructure needed to get their fans to and from their games.

After the taxpayers build them a new facility they can gouge them for tickets for a few years until the shine wears off the stadium and then threaten to move their team until the taxpayers build them another new facility.

I think they should move every fucking professional team to Texas or some other libertarian paradise where they can legally steal even more of the public's money.

[AndyTiedye]

2. Bad Link, That is the Link to Post a New Thread, Not a Link to an Existing Thread

I'd think the developers of the arena would want good public transport to it as well, so more people come to the games.

[Auggie]

4. Link fixed ...

thanks, with sincere apologies.

[Mr.Bill]

3. Taxpayer money should not be used to enhance the bank accounts of franchise owners

AT&T Park where the SF Giants play was built without taxpayer dollars and it is arguably one of the finest ballparks in the nation, if not the finest. It can be done.

The idea that a new sports arena is needed when a perfectly servicable one exists is ridiculous, and is just a real estate deal for the owners to make money from. I have no problem with sports franchises making money, but let them spend their own money for their venues.

[Auggie]

5. AT&T Park was built on an ugly industrial warehouse site too

and, eventually, serviced fairly well by public transit. Not sure, but I bet the soil was closely scrutinized and detoxed as necessary.

One could argue about the waterfront vistas it blocks, but considering what was there before, and the reclamation of Candlestick Point once that stadium comes down, I'd say that AT&T Park was an even swap.

[olddots]

6. Don't check out the past of Dodger Stadium / Chavez Ravine

unless you can stomach murder ,racism and greed . California's past isn't checkered , its solid white greed .