Warriors Mission Bay Arena Rendering

The Golden State Warriors have prevailed in their legal battle with the Mission Bay Alliance over the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Warriors’ proposed 18,000-seat arena and event center to rise in San Francisco’s Mission Bay.

While a Superior Court judge had affirmed the adequacy of the EIR and approval process for the proposed arena and office development back in July, the Mission Bay Alliance appealed.

And this afternoon, a panel of three appellate court judges unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision, clearing the way for the Warriors to break ground.

The Warriors have been pushing forward with a project schedule that calls for breaking ground for “Chase Center” in the first quarter of 2017.  If the team doesn’t break ground by the middle of 2017, the $1 billion arena won’t be ready in time for the tip off of the 2019-2020 NBA season, which is already a year later than originally planned.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Orland

    The opponents will now have a 30-40 day window within which to seek review of the Calif. Supreme Court. Expect summary denial within 30 days thereafter. They should make their groundbreaking deadline comfortably.

  2. Posted by MB

    Been waiting for this good news for like FOREVER!! Congrats Warriors – can’t wait for the groundbreaking ceremony! Welcome HOME!!!

  3. Posted by E. Gonsalves

    How come San Francisco is “home” after nine years in Daly City, but after 45 years in Oakland, that host city means nothing to the Warriors?

    • Posted by MB

      Because the whole reason they came to California in the first place was because of San Francisco in the 1960’s.

    • Posted by cfb

      You act like SF is across the country, instead of literally right next door to Oakland, within the same metropolitan area. Hell, for all intents and purposes, they ARE the same city. The new arena will be like 10 miles away from the old one, and it’ll almost be the same as if the team didn’t move at all. Besides, they played in SF before they ever played in Oakland anyways. And I’m not talking about the cow palace/Daly City (which is literally right on the city border regardless, and may as well be SF-proper). They played at Bill Graham civic auditorium too, in the heart of the city, which you conveniently forgot to mention.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Not to mention that for years their slogan has been “The City”, which anyone on the west coast (outside of some petulant Angelinos and Seattlites) means San Francisco.

        • Posted by Orland

          Really? I’m a big SF booster but I think that is an unrealistically parochial view-point of anyone outside the immediate Bay Area.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            “The City” monicker is a snobbish reference perpetuated by provincial San Franciscans who think they are better than Oakland or San Jose. That monicker is an arrogant insult to two other large cities in the Bay Area. The Warriors are so SF-centric and tone deaf that they plaster that snobbish SF “The City” logo on the floor of a building owned by Oakland tax payers.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            “The Town” monicker is a snobbish reference perpetuated by provincial Oaklanders who think they are better than the all the other towns. That monicker is an arrogant insult to dozens of other towns in the Bay Area. The Townies are so Oakland-centric and tone deaf that they plaster that snobbish Oakland “The Town” logo on public spaces owned by Oakland tax payers.

          • Posted by anon2

            “San Franciscans who think they are better than Oakland or San Jose”
            Well, no to ‘name names’, but it’s not called the “San Francisco Bay Area” because Oakland or San Jose is the center of economy, culture, politics, and population for the entire region.

          • Posted by Orland

            I have to believe it’s the ‘San Francisco Bay Area” because of San Francisco Bay.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            “The City” originated in the 19th century, when San Francisco was, literally, *the* city on the west coast. There’s nothing parochial about it – and it’s certainly of a piece with other city nicknames, such as “The Hub [of the Universe]” for Boston (a.k.a. “Athens of America”).

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          “The City” what an arrogant monicker. Oaklanders think don’t like it either.

          • Posted by Friscan

            Come on. People in the Bay Area have been calling SF “The City” since the early 20th Century. Talk to anyone who’s been in the Bay Area for over 50 years: we’ll tell you “The City” is so ingrained that we call South San Francisco “South City.”

          • Posted by Anonymous

            You have a massively provincial attitude centered on Oakland despite not living there…

          • Posted by Ohlone Californio

            nonsense. Plenty of Oakland and Berkeley folks call SF “the City.”

          • Posted by Chris Brown

            I guess Herb Caen was arrogant. The term “The City” has been used as nickname for San Francisco generations. For many years, there was only one city as compared to the small towns and villages in the area. If people are so insecure about a common nickname, it is time they get over it.

            Now, let’s move the discussion to where it belongs–the arena. Drop all this stupidity and blather about nicknames.

          • Posted by MDG399

            We are the city. Get used to it. As Gertrude Stein – who was from Oakland – said of Oakland…. “There’s no ‘There’ There….”

            come on…. take a ribbing and a joke. Who cares what SF or Oakland are called…..

            So long as SF is 1st…. :p

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Let’s face it, Oakland and San Francisco are two seperate cities and rivals in every way.

        • Posted by Anonymous

          In the same way that Newark, NJ and New York are “rivals”… oh wait.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Yes, Newark NJ has three pro sports teams with 8 world titles between them. Also, Newark is half the size of NYC and is a growing dynamic city known for its cuisine and art scene. Newark also has multi million dollar hillside neighborhoods with magnificent Bay views. Newark also has a redwood forest just six miles from downtown just like Oakland has. What a great comparison. You are obviously someone well traveled and well versed on everything that Newark NJ and Oakland have to offer.

        • Posted by SFRealist

          What do you mean “rivals”? SF is a city. Oakland is a city. They are near each other. This is not a fight. Both cities have been here for 150 years and will live on long after us. People move back and forth and it’s no big deal.

        • Posted by Fishchum

          “rivals in every way”? Uh, no. As a Giants fan, I can tell you that most Giants fans really don’t care about the A’s or their fans – even with the advent of inter-league play that brings the A’s to SF and the Giants to Oakland.

          A friend once compared the Giants and A’s to that of Charlie Brown (Giants) and Violet (A’s): Charlie Brown really doesn’t say much to Violet, yet for some reason she’s always a b&*%ch to him.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Yes, it’s Oakland which has oppressed San Francisco for decades. Pretending that San Franciscans are above having a rivalry with Oakland is very snobbish and a perfect example of the anti-Oakland dismissive attitude exemplified by the Warriors.

          • Posted by Anon123

            If every Oakland residence had as much love and pride for their city as E. Gonsalves has, it would be an awesome city to live in and it wouldn’t matter what people across the Bay said or did.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            the oakland raiders dont compete with DelaSalle High school. That a more apt comparison to SF competing with Oakland. SF is an A world class city. Oakland is a C american city

          • Posted by Fishchum

            @E. Gonsalves – Please describe, in detail, how San Francisco has “oppressed” Oakland.

        • Posted by Spencer

          More like jersey city

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            More like Oakland. And SF is no Manhattan.

    • Posted by M.Harris

      I was thinking the same…!

  4. Posted by E. Gonsalves

    But they failed miserably in SF with an average attendance of under 5,000 per game in an era where the Lakers and Celtics were averaging over 11,000 per game. Oakland rescued that franchise and supported it through thick and thin. Now the Warriors betray Oakland after 45 years of incredible support.

    • Posted by MB

      Only because SF couldn’t get a decent-sized arena built. Oakland built their facility with the intention to take the franchise away from SF. In this case, they were able to keep the franchise local all these years until SF could finally get their act together with the help of new ownership. So yes, the franchise is coming back HOME!

    • Posted by SFRealist

      Yes, the Warriors are betraying Oakland.

      Just like how the A’s betrayed Kansas City when they moved to Oakland. And the Thunder betrayed Seattle. And the Rams betrayed LA and then St. Louis. The Raiders are doing it right now!

      Owners of sports teams don’t give a damn for their cities (with the exception of the Packers). Never have, and they never will. It’s not right, but it’s the way the world works.

      • Posted by Orland

        Broke my heart when the Braves left Milwaukee for Atlanta. Of course, they had deserted their longstanding Boston home just the decade before.

        I was heartened when the Brewers brought MLB back to Brewtown. Then again, that was after they had spent only a year in Seattle.

        So it goes indeed.

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Except that the Wsrriors are extremely successful in Oakland and those other franchises were not so successful in their former home cities. It’s just pure disrespect and greed to a city that has made them extremely successful.

        • Posted by SFRealist

          Nope. The A’s drew well in Kansas City. The Braves drew well in Milwaukee. The Browns drew well in Cleveland before becoming the Ravens.

          You’re right, though. It shows disrespect and greed. 100%. I’m not defending it. That’s how it’s always been.

          Repeat after me: “the owners of don’t give a damn about me.” If you believe otherwise, you’re a sucker.

          • Posted by SFcitizen

            Who cares about the sports? I’m just excited about having a venue in the City for Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and other entertainment. Woohoo!!!

        • Posted by Anonymous

          The city of Oakland had nothing to do with the Warriors recent success as a franchise. Believing otherwise is objectively wrong. Period.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Really, who paid for the 168 million complete renovation of Oracle Arena in 1997? Did San Francisco pay for that? The Wariors have benefited greatly due to the tremendous and passionate support in Oakland. The Warriors will never duplicate the same environment in S.F. with the shallow San Francisco corporate crowd. Let’s face it, fans in Oakland are louder and more passionate than fans in San Francisco. That goes for Raider fans, A’s fans, and Warriors fans. They will never be able to recreate the Oakland passion in San Francisco. It’s going to be a corporate snooze-fest ala Santa Clara and Levis Stadium.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            Good job not making an actual point. But by all means, continuing whining and then crying when (not if) they move. Your opinion means literally nothing to them in general or to their bottom line.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            And by the way, the vast majority of people at any given game are not from and do not live in Oakland. Your willful ignorance and misrepresentation of basic facts is disgusting but completely unsurprising.

      • Posted by MB

        SF Giants ownership is also an exception as they DO care about SF and worked out a way to remain in the City by the Bay.

        • Posted by SFRealist

          Sort of. They figured out how to remain in the city because that’s how they made the most money for themselves. They could have moved to Tampa, but look at the problems the Devil Rays have with their stadium. Staying in SF made them the most money.

          • Posted by Orland

            You need a historical refresher. The current ownership group formulated specifically for the purpose of keeping the Giants in SF after buying the team from Bob Lurie who had struck a deal to move it to Tampa – St Pete.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            Yes, they wanted to keep the Giants in SF. It so happens that keeping the Giants in SF was also the way that they made the most money.

            But it is true that this particular ownership group deserves credit for keeping the Giants here. I’ll give them that. They should be congratulated.

          • Posted by zig

            SFRealist

            Hindsight is nice but if someone else had the vision of how much money would be made the team would not have been sold or the price bid up

            They bought the team, bought a private stadium in a derelict area and built the winning culture.

          • Posted by Orland

            They (especially McGowan) were all about keeping the Giants in SF. PERIOD!

      • Posted by donjuan

        What the heck are you saying? It’s not the same AT ALL. Moving a team from Seattle to Oklahoma is much much worse than moving a team 30 minutes to the west, accessible by the same public transit line mind you.

      • Posted by donjuan

        How can you compare this to moving a team from Seattle to Oklahoma??

        SF is 20 minute BART ride away from the current stadium in Oakland.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      You’ve been spouting the same delusional nonsense for years across numerous sites. Your whining changes nothing and you still come off as a petulant child after all this time. Get the hell over it.

  5. Posted by MB

    So it follows that the Warriors “betrayed” SF when they moved to Oakland. Like you said, doesn’t matter, teams do it all the time.

    I’m happy though in this case – SF gets their NBA team back and also a crucial piece of civic infrastructure they’ve never had.

  6. Posted by E. Gonsalves

    The real betrayal will be if they change their name to “San Francisco” after shuning Oakland for 45 years. The disrespect the Wsrriors have shown Oakland is epic.

    • Posted by MB

      Golden State is the lamest, most ambiguous name in sports. 45 years and they never called themselves “Oakland”. I can’t wait for them to change it back to SF!! The new merchandise possibilities are endless ;^)

    • Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

      Well, if the Warriors do adopt the “San Francisco” name (and I’m betting that they will…), then that means that the name “Golden State” is now available, for somebody like, say the 49ers to use, since like the Warriors when they moved across the bay, are also no longer in San Francisco.

      • Posted by Notcom

        There’s nothing preventing the ‘Niner’s from adjusting their name now…it’s not like it’s some unique name the NBA has a lock on.

        And BTW, the change to the name “Golden State” came about in response to a bizarre plan to have the team split their “home” b/w the Bay Area and San Diego, not particularly due to the relocation to the Eastbay.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          And after 45 years in Oakland they continue to snub the city by not changing the name to Oakland.

          • Posted by Notcom

            I disagree the past 45 years has been a snub, since GS is a generic name that reflects the regional nature of the team. (Perhaps) paradoxically, though, I think reversion to the “San Francisco” name WOULD be a snub, since it would lessen the regional image….there are, after all two NFL and MLB teams, so it’s logical they reflect the areas they play in.

            The main issue here, which you keeping bumping into – though no intentional foul should be called – is that they are moving from a central Bay Area location, w/ a diverse audience which rather closely matches Bay Area population distributions, to a SF location….much less central, and less convenient to where most of the current fans live; not surprisingly this will result in the fan base becoming much more SFcentric. The obvious question is what drove what: did ownership decide to primarily pursue a high income and corporate audience, and so wanted to locate where such reside, or did they decide to move to SF for the sake of moving, and the shift in attendance was the result, rather than the cause ?? Without a more detailed expose of the selection process, we can’t know.

  7. Posted by Orland

    I have even less enthusiasm for this development than for the Giants’ Mission Rock proposal. They should have come up with a joint proposal for Lot A consisting largely of the Arena/event venue evoking the location’s maritime setting instead of an ugly saucer.

    The old Salesforce property could then be developed more appropriate to the neighborhood. It’s not like the Mission Bay Alliance and cohorts were completely lacking on the merits of the argument. As a land use prospect, we could have done better for both parcels than what apparently will transpire.

  8. Posted by pablito

    Regional planning? The existing stadium is centrally located in the region’s population – adjacent to a major freeway and on a BART stop. Expecting to see lots of smug self satisfied SF gloating on this one – in The City it seems okay to look down on the misfortune of your poorer minority neighbors as they lose one of the few successful land uses left. And at MTC and ABAG? Not a peep will be raised….

    • Posted by cfb

      SF is 60% minority, in case you forgot.

    • Posted by cfb

      Oh, and SF also has more poor people than Oakland too (yeah, Oakland has more as a percentage though).

      • Posted by Justin

        Honestly, the new location sucks. It is going to be a nightmare to get to games/events and pretty awful for everyone that lives around that area. The current stadium was far superior from a transit point of view.

        • Posted by MB

          And ONLY from a transit point of view! The new location in SF with be brimming with exciting nightlife/restaurant/bar action instead of being surrounded by an ocean of pavement in a less than desirable neighborhood.

  9. Posted by SassySFboy

    Agreed, and mothers with sick children who strongly oppose this arena for safety purposes should starting planning their move to new locations for the sake of the children–if such mothers truely are concerned for safety rather than a Mission Alliance Payoff. I’m just saying…

    • Posted by Columbo

      Except that old, tired “for the children” plea did not even work. The courts deemed there was no danger to patients and thus, the arena will be built. Having UCSF as NIMBYs has been hugely disappointing.

      • Posted by Orland

        If you would take your booster blinders off, you would realize that UCSF the institution was on board with the Warriors and there might well have been a very different result had it forcibly fought it.

  10. Posted by Mutal Kudi

    The Warriors are absolutely going to change the name to San Francisco Warriors, and they absolutely are going to pretend their history with Oakland never happened. That’s what teams do. They are after your money, nothing else – and I say this as a lifelong sports fan.

    The best we can hope for is that the Warriors don’t do what the 49ers did – fire the coach and tear down the team as soon as the stadium deal is concluded. If you think that won’t happen, you’re drastically underestimating the cynicism of team owners. Only Draymond is currently under contract for 2019-2020…

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      That’s a great way to alianate most of the Bay Area. You think people in Oakland and the East Bay are going to support a “San Francisco” team after it “pretends that 50 years in Oakland never existed?” Good luck with that. S.F. is not even a basketball town or a very good sports town. Oakland has the tradition and all the basketball greats like Bill Russel, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, J.R. Ryder , Damian Lilard, etc.. It would be a huge mistake to further disrespect Oakland’s great NBA legacy and change the name to “San Francisco.”

      • Posted by Mutal Kudi

        I think people will support a team that wins, and they will not support a team that loses.

      • Posted by Spencer

        Who cares? They will sell out every night from SF and peninsula fans if oakland wants to sulk

      • Posted by Orland

        “Oakland’s great NBA legacy…”

        You can’t be serious! For the great bulk of their time in Oakland, the franchise was considered the laughing stock of the league and its fan-base was commendably rabid in its support.

    • Posted by donjuan

      The Warriors have no reason to abandon their Oakland identity. Golden State will stick forever.

      • Posted by MB

        Au contraire! A huge benefit of moving across the Bay is taking the SF name. Restoring the team’s name to “San Francisco” has enormous esoteric benefits (all the cache that comes with a famous, world-class name). Kind of like going from Newark, to New York. Again, look at all the great merchandising possibilities here!

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          You really think that the San Francisco name is a great sports marketing asset? San Francisco is a soft name not identified with toughness or sports. San Francisco is a corporate city and a tourist city. I don’t see the benefit of “San Francisco” across the jersey. Who is that suppose to impress or intimidate?

          • Posted by Orland

            The ownership is uncompromising in its stated determination to change the name back to San Francisco. BTW aren’t they pretty much “outsiders” to the Bay Area prior to making their acquisition? I doubt they have any appreciation for the bitterness their loyal East Bay fans might be feeling about the “relocation. “

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Ermehgerd, seriously? Yeah, those “San Francisco” Giants are a joke, they haven’t won a world series in decades (oh, no, wait – that’s wrong), and the “San Francisco” 49ers have never done anything good (oh, no, wait – it has one of the strongest, most storied histories in the NFL). You seriously need to start separating your fantasy of what should be from reality, if you want to land any salient point in this discussion.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            when anaheim angels changed to LA angels, merchandising sales increased by 50%. Anaheim to LA is akin to Oakland to SF

          • Posted by MB

            E. Gonsalves wrote: “San Francisco is a soft name not identified with toughness or sports.”

            Uh, yeah right. Ever heard of the legendary QB Joe Montana? Five Super Bowl Champions? SF Giants World Series Champions ring a bell or have you been hibernating for the last half dozen years?

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          Yup, I have to confess that for the first 3 years I lived *in the Bay Area*, I thought the “Golden State” Warriors were based in Sacramento, or somewhere in the Valley. It’s a meaningless name.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            That’s why the Oakland Raders lead in NFL merchandizing and in NFL TV ratings. Not bad for a “a class C city.” Such S.F. snobbery thinking that S.F. is the center of the universe. I can guarantee you that no one in middle America wants to be seen wearing anything with “San Francisco” on a sports jersey.

          • Posted by Jake

            references I see say Raiders weren’t even in the top ten NFL teams in merchandise sales in 2015, and as recently as Sept 2016 Forbes ranked them 20th in team value and with the lowest revenue in the entire NFL (namelink).

            Oakland has many great reasons for a company to locate there, but all three of the top sports teams currently there either are leaving (Warriors), will leave when they get a better offer (Raiders for the second time), or would already have moved to a better location (The San Jose Athletics) if they weren’t prevented by the SF Giants.

          • Posted by Jake

            Many teams have higher tv ratings than the Raiders, including Dallas, Washington, Seattle, and Green Bay. This year the Raiders haven’t even once been in the most watched game in a given week (namelink). By contrast Dallas has been in the most watched game 6 of the 12 weeks, and Green Bay has 4 out of 12. Must be an east coast bias.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            not to mention, virtually all Raiders gear say simply that – Raiders – and doesn’t broadcast the Oakland name.

  11. Posted by E. Gonsalves

    The bottom line is that this move is bad for the entire region and only serves the greedy billionaire owners of the Warriors. This will mean more congested on the approaches of the Bay Bridge as well as on SF city streets.

    This irresponsible relocation will also harm East Oakland along with the hotels and restaurants on Hegenberger Road near Oakland International Airport. Keep in mind that the Warriors also plan on taking the concerts, ice shows, etc,, with them to San Francisco.

    Oakland could have used the development while bloated San Francisco doesn’t need any more development or congestion. This irresponsible relocation will be bad for Oakland, bad for San Francisco, and bad for the quality of life for the entire Bay Area region.

    • Posted by Anon123

      If Oakland wants to keep major sports teams they can still work out deals with the A’s and the Raiders. The city just have to decide if it is worth the investment of taxpayer money, and so far the answer is no.

      • Posted by MB

        They should put all their energies into securing a new home for the A’s first. 81 home dates vs only 8 for football. Any kid can do the math here.

      • Posted by Spencer

        Raiders are going to leave. They should focus on the A’s.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      You’re right–it does serve the billionaire owners of the Warriors.

      Like I said above, though, that’s how it works! Do you think Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore out of the goodness of his heart? Or Al Davis moving the Raiders back and forth to LA? Or Jed York moving the Niners to Santa Clara? I hope this isn’t news to you

      And I guarantee the name will be San Francisco Warriors and they will make a ton of money from it.

  12. Posted by E. Gonsalves

    Oakland is currently working with both the NFL and MLB on building stadiums in Oakland. The A’s are looking at the waterfront near Jack London Square and the NFL is looking at the current Coliseum location.

    • Posted by Anon123

      Despite all the talk of the Raiders moving to Las Vegas, if Oakland will match the terms it is hard to imagine them leaving town (making the same mistake twice).

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        Oakland is not going to “match the terms” of well over $1 billion in free money being invested in the new stadium in Las Vegas. It simply can’t, for starters. And it shouldn’t.

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          Oakland wil not need to match Las Vegas dollar for dollar because Oakland is a far better market. The NFL does not want to give up Oakland and a central Bay Area location.

  13. Posted by yak

    San Francisco is “The City” it always has been! Oakland and San Jose are just as great as San Francisco. Why does it always have to be a fight. Just build great building that will test the mark or time and spread love to your neighbors. That is what makes a great place to live.

    • Posted by E. Gonsalves

      San Francisco has always looked down its nose at Oakland. Oakland has suffered for decades at the hands of SF media, SF banks, SF elitists. The divestment out of Oakland by the Warriors as well as the refusal to identify with Oakland is an example of the snobbish anti-Oakland sentiment perpetuated by SF types for decades.

      • Posted by Anon123

        Oakland has to create it’s own identity or world image; San Francisco is a world city just like Los Angeles is. People around the world know these cities – to them Disney Land is located in Los Angeles!

        It is an uphill battle, but it doesn’t help to blame SF; you might as well blame Tony Bennett or Michael Jackson for being famous.

      • Posted by Brad

        Poor Oakland! I hope everyone is ok, suffering as they do under the abuse of all those bullies across the bay!

        • Posted by E. Gonsalves

          Oakland is a resilient city and will overcome the obstacles and the SF attitudes.

  14. Posted by SF_Landlord

    Time to ditch that Golden State moniker now 🙂

    • Posted by MB

      I definitely second that motion! I can’t wait to purchase the new “San Francisco Warriors” merchandise!!

  15. Posted by MB

    The new Warriors arena in SF is going to be absolutely fantastic! Just envision the neighborhood in the top photo….once the Giant’s new Mission Rock project is built, it will fill out the area between the ballpark and new arena quite nicely. Those Bayfront condos in between these areas would be a most excellent place to live for a sports-minded MD or bio-scientist 😉

    • Posted by Orland

      Much better would have been a joint effort to locate the arena/event venue on Lot A with a more appropriate use of the Salesforce property. If not neighborhood housing, perhaps even for biotech or future UCSF expansion as championed by Mission Bay Alliance.

      • Posted by MB

        I don’t know. Somehow, I don’t like to see two major sports facilities side by side like the Seattle football stadium and baseball park for example. Having these two major venues spread apart a bit looks more aesthetically pleasing. But that’s just me. And yes, I’m glad MBA is losing all their frivolous delaying lawsuits.

        • Posted by Orland

          Their lawsuits were hardly “frivilous.” The Warriors demonstrated plenty of political savvy relying upon the public popularity of the move to SF. With Mayor Lee as a backer and the BOS also on board, all the reviewing agencies found ways to rationalize affirmative findings and pass it on to the next.

          The courts too read the tea leaves and deferred to the politicos rubber-stamping the administrative determinations as supportable without truly addressing the issues and applicable law.

          In fact, MBA had some very valid criticisms which never got a serious CEQA analysis — and I say that as a supporter of the move and building of an arena/event venue in SF.

          • Posted by MB

            Well, as a supporter of the move and arena, you should know that if the MBA had got their way and prevented the Warriors from building on this site, I highly doubt the ownership would try a third time and SF would’ve lost both the team and new arena.

          • Posted by Orland

            I was just stating the facts. I’ve never understood the mischaracterization of MBA’s position with character assassination so rife at this site. Pretty childish actually.

            While I do welcome the Warrior “return” and the addition of a much needed event venue to the SF scene, I just have a hard time working up much enthusiasm for this building in that location. I am also not without qualms about wresting the franchise from a rather beleaguered city and loyal fan-base.

  16. Posted by 101

    Just heard a radio commercial on KCBS from the Mission Bay Alliance. Makes me wonder what is up their sleeve after this last court ruling.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Thinking they have the Warriors just where they want ’em ??
      🙂

      • Posted by E. Gonsalves

        Let’s hope so. That’s a terrible location for an 18,500 seat arena. If the Warriors really wanted to control their destiny like they claim, they could have bought Oracle Arena for far less than they are spending in this horrible location. The Warriors also falsely denigrated Oakland claiming the city was a deterrent to getting free agents to sign with the team. In reality it was because the Warriors were s horrible franchise for such a long time. What a despicable and dishonest ownership.

        • Posted by MB

          You need to get over your SF jealousy/indignation and just accept reality. SF is a far more attractive and lucrative place to market a pro sports team and the new ownership is wise to the fact. This is going to be the most spectacular arena in California if not the country – right on the SF waterfront. I’d have more pity for you if you were a Supersonics fan having your team leave Seattle for OKC. Geez, so you’ll have to go a few more stops on BART boo hoo. If you’re a true Warriors fan you’ll follow them to Mission Bay.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            You don’t seem to get it. It’s about right and wrong. It’s about wronging a community. Do you really think anyone with an affinity for Oakland is ok with this and can’t wait to head for San Francisco to support the “San Francisco” Warriors? No way. I’ll be supporting who ever plays against “San Francisco.”

        • Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

          @E, this is not about right and wrong. Its about business. Period. Sports businesses are nothing more than for-profit entertainment vehicles with players and coaches simply interchangeable contractors. They always have been this way and they always will be, and they’ll get their fan base wherever they feel “the franchise” best serves the business’s overall business goals.

          You could have written the following and it would still be the same outcome – a business related move…

          “You don’t seem to get it. It’s about right and wrong. It’s about wronging a community. Do you really think anyone with an affinity for New Jersey is ok with this and can’t wait to head for Brooklyn to support the ‘Brooklyn’ Nets? No way. I’ll be supporting who ever plays against ‘Brooklyn'”

          or, more close to home…

          “You don’t seem to get it. It’s about right and wrong. It’s about wronging a community. Do you really think anyone with an affinity for San Francisco is ok with this and can’t wait to head for Santa Clara to support the ‘Golden State’ 49ers? No way. I’ll be supporting who ever plays against ‘Golden State.'”

          And you could have written your statement multiple time for various sports franchises in multiple leagues across the US, and beyond. It happens. Its business.

          • Posted by E. Gonsalves

            Sorry, I don’t give the Warriors ownership a pass just because “it happens.” Using a city for what will be 50 years, never acknowledging that city with a name or any kind of merchandise, using a renovated arena paid with Oakland taxpayer money, completely disrespecting Oakland as they cozy up to S.F., taking jobs out of East Oakland, hurting the hotels and restaurants along Hegenberger Road, is just plain wrong. This is just pure greed from billionaires who have further enriched themselves off of a very loyal city and now will just throw Oakland away.

    • Posted by MB

      They’re just leftover commercials after their losing appeals effort. Let them continue to waste their money.

  17. Posted by Wahrheit macht frei

    I don’t particularly care about the Warriors or basketball in general, but it’s an embarrassment that SF doesn’t have a proper modern arena venue for concerts and other events. So I thank the Warriors ownership for fixing this, even though I’ll not be going there for their games. I’m sure they will be well rewarded. Tough luck for Oakland, but that city has many more important problems it urgently needs to deal with.

    • Posted by Orland

      Losing a championship professional sport franchise successfully ensconced in a popular venue certainly isn’t going to help.

      • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

        Spending a gazillion taxpayer dollars to keep said sports franchise isn’t going to help either. Do you have evidence that the Warriors have any material positive impact on Oakland other than “feelgood factor” and the occasional player volunteering at a soup kitchen as a photo op? Their current arena is too far from any decent business and entertainment district to generate incremental revenue.

  18. Posted by East Bay City Dweller

    Pretty ridiculous how insecure residents are about a neighboring city. Both have amazing fans and living in both cities have their pros & cons. Can’t we all just get along?

    • Posted by Wahrheit macht frei

      This is what happens when you’re a “fan” of a for-profit franchisee of a for-profit entertainment corporation. “City pride” a friend called it when the Giants won some championship or other. Yeah, whatever.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *