Our Voice: Development discussion must start at grassroots
by Press Editorial Board
Sep 21, 2012 | 4831 views | 45 45 comments | 207 207 recommendations | email to a friend | print
When the city announced a Monday, Sept. 17, meeting to discuss possible changes at the Tracy Ballpark, it seemed like a reasonable discussion about the future of an almost 70-year-old facility.

But when the presentation included mock-ups of various residential developments replacing the athletic fields, it gave the impression that city staff had already charted a way forward.

Poster boards drawn up by a consultant showed house and apartment arrangements in place of the iconic sports fields gifted to the city by the Ritter family in 1944.

According to the presentation, the athletics practices for youth teams at Tracy Ballpark could be moved to the Holly Sugar Sports Complex. Everyone would be happy.

Everyone except the many residents caught completely off guard by the proposal.

It even surprised the City Council. At least some members had no idea the rudimentary plans had been drawn up. The council understandably put the brakes on the process Tuesday.

City Hall described Monday’s meeting as a first step — a chance to gauge the feelings of neighbors and the community about the best ways to use the Tracy Ballpark property. City Manager Leon Churchill said it was a move consistent with council direction regarding previous projects.

Churchill insisted it was part of an honest effort, albeit a clumsy one, to gather input about what the preferred options were surrounding the seen-better-days Tracy Ballpark. Nothing has been decided at any level, he said, adding that it will be the residents of Tracy and the ballpark’s neighbors who have the biggest say in its fate.

If that’s the case, the parks and recreation presentation jumped the gun in a serious way. It gave the impression that the public’s voice was an afterthought — a surefire way to taint a project and kill it in the court of public opinion.

It also raises questions about who stands to benefit from such a project, and why it’s being considered at this time.

Let’s hope that the less-than-graceful start to this discussion doesn’t end it.

The park is an asset to the city, and a city that seeks to improve itself should constantly examine whether its assets and plans are living up to potential. There are good reasons to consider changing the use and purpose of the Tracy Ballpark, just as there are valid reasons to preserve and restore it.

However, this discussion shouldn’t begin with a consultant’s vision. It should begin with a vision from the people who call Tracy home.
Comments
(45)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Realintracy
|
October 03, 2012
Why does this have ta be a political issue right before an election? Why wasn't it important before or after th election?

A-1, because it happened before the election.

A-2, because it would then logically only occur the day of the election.

Ornely could you please explain how it is that when someone states an opinion you demand verifiable facts, and then opine with impunity?

When someone presents facts, like city council minutes, you attack them and say the have ulterior motives?

When you argue with yourself, are you always right? Is it true you thought you were wrong once in your life, but it turned out you were right?
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 04, 2012
I think when Ornley_Gumfudgen is asking for facts you are mixing up what he is asking for.

You seem to be using one thing to lead to another.

When it probably don't even matter what they said. It is all preliminary.

And those so called "facts" are a moot point.

Why? Because the park should be re-purposed.

It is unsafe.

If you and others are blatantly ignoring safety issues for your own political gain, here, then shame on you and your so called facts.

The rest of the town can see children walking across four lanes without a crosswalk and know better.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 04, 2012
RIT

Tracy minutes are facts an facts that anyone can reference. What I am talkin about facts is when ya indicate that th land was donated an expressly stipulated ta be used fer eternity as a Ball Park. Th FACT th comment was made an recorded in th council minutes don't make th statement an actual FACT until it can be proven.

I have asked over an over fer ya to prove that one thang an ya can't. It ain't a FACT until it's proved, it's just a statement that was made an recorded in City Council minutes but that don't mean th statement itself is factual.

I do believe yer capable of understandin that but I do have ta admit I am startin ta have my doubts.

Fine if Maciel said he wants ta sell it. Don't mean he can an he can't without a majority of support frum th council.

Does th fact Maciel says he would sell it make him wrong or right? Many would support that an feel he is representin thair viewpoint. Others don't. That's politics. I fer one am on record of statin I thank it should be sold an have provided solid financial reasons as why it should be sold fer th greater overwhelmin benefit of ALL th citizens of Tracy an not just th nostalgic desires of a few where it really doesn't have th same benefit fer ALL.

Th debacle over this one park has been goin on fer over 20 years that I can recall, which I delineated in other postins, an th only time th public really views it is when it a thangs like it suddenly become th political whippin post right before an election. Why not ALL of th time an not just right before an election?

Th need, election or not, is still thair an if yer interested in fillin th need it ought ta be address ALL of th time an not when someone chooses ta make it a political statement RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION.

So, tell me what sort of plan can ya come up with other than endless complainin that Mike or some other council member don't see it yer way?

If it's a good en who knows, I might support it an point our council towards it. But simply complainin an pointin an accusatory finger tawards council while offerin no other alternatives or possible solutions ain't gonna fix th problem.

So prove yer facts yer gettin out of council minutes an I'll listen. What ya have now are allegations made by a lawyer that plainly has another agenda UNLESS he's representin himself an or it's entirely a pro-bono representation.

You won't take my word or anyone else's word that disagrees with ya, why are ya so ready ta take th word of a complete stranger who is a litigator simply because ya happen ta feel he agrees with ya.

Would he have th same stance if he wasn't bein paid by someone ta have that stance? After all, ain't that what you an others say that council does. An I am th one that says they may have ulterior motives. That's a good en since ya an others have accused yer elected council of doin th very same thang without any facts ta back em up?

Notice that ya also slip inta yer personal insults with th last line. Stick ta th topic an leave th insults alone an ya will do better in supportin yer cause.

Look, ya gotta right ta express yer opinion. Just state it, as I do, as an opinion, every time, instead of tryin ta consistently pass it off as a fact an we can then get along.

I don't know if it's a fact it was a gift with stipulations or not an ta date no one has been able ta establish it as a FACT. Just allegations an comments frum people who obviously were not thair.

If ya make a statement as a given fact, isn't it logical that you would be able to prove it as a fact? I can quip that th world is round, does it make it a fact? Actually it ain't round an more like a fat pear with th bottom bigger than th top. See, ta say it's round is not factual even though most people believe it.

All I want ta consider are th facts an not th idle machinations of someone else's thankin. Is that unreasonable? I am of th inclination in yer mind it is.

Fact - Th present facility does not meet th need.

Fact - It costs more ta maintain this facility than it would ta replace it.

Fact - It would cost more ta bring it up ta th condition it should be than it would be ta flatten it an start over from below ground up an still ya would be left with a facility too small ta meet th need.

Fact - This facility has had these known problems fer 20 years or more an more than one item has been suggested about what ta do about it yet still, nothang proactively ta solve th problems has been done.

Those are facts an anyone that has a desire ta do what's best fer th entire community can easily prove em.

Pseudo fact (meaning it's not a real fact but an allegation) - Th land was donated fer th purpose of havin it remain a ball park ferever.

That is somethang said but seems can't be proved an th only real mitigatin factor that people seem ta be stuck on.

If ya can make a significant improvement ta meet th need in one ta two years or wait fer five or six years ta get started ta meet that need, which one would you choose, th longer period of time?

That don't make sense if yer really concarned about th overall needs of th entire community of Tracy.

So, can ya prove th pseudo fact or not? It seems ta be yer only real stickin point.

"I put my comment in both blogs because the articles were about the park."

OK then, why did ya politicize both with yer comments about th upcomin election? Is th election more important than th park an what gets done?

Did ya ever stop ta thank fer a second th majority of th people who elected those members of city council ta office are actually gettin th representation they deserve?

Which is more important, th park an a safe place fer our children ta play usin facilities that better fit th overall need or th politics? Sorry friend I'll choose th people over politics every day especially when it's a clear financial decision that weighs in th decision an one that will produce more fruit than continuin ta poor money inta a facility that will never meet th current need an I really believe th average Tracy Citizen, when given all th facts, would do th same, politics aside.

Personally I believe that council is listenin ta th public an doin what th majority of that public desires. Fer one, it's how they got elected in th first place because only a fool would vote fer someone not ta represent his viewpoints.

Ya allege they aren't representin th public an only do what they wanna do. But so far as I have been able ta determine ya have provided absolutely no factual evidence that would proof it. Just take yer word fer it. Sorry but as much as I might admire ya I simply cannot accept yer word fer it unless ya can prove it, which ya haven't.

If thair on th take, prove it. If they act on their own behalf an not th behalf of th majority of th citizens they have been elected ta represent, prove it.

If someone says th park ain't safe or th traffic around th park ain't safe because of jaywalkin kids, prove it is safe an th jaywalkin ain't goin on.

Again, simply sayin somethang is true or false don't mean it is or isn't until it can be proved. So prove it already an stop with th political crap that gets in th way an is keepin our kids frum playin safely on a facility that meets most of thair needs instead of clingin on ta a nostalgic past that don't fit th current need.

Realintracy
|
October 03, 2012
Ornely,

I put my comment in both blogs because the articles were about the park.

Sugar- the reason I said Maciel wanted to sell the park is, well, that's exactly what he said at the previous city council meeting when the topic came up.

As far as political motives, I want our counsel and the city leadership to be responsive to the public and do the peoples work. When they don't we need to call them on it and if they don't listen, they need to be replaced.

Realintracy
|
October 03, 2012
The city agreed to take ownership of the property in 1944. For $10 Ritter '"sold" the land to the city for use as a ball filed or park according to a counsel resolution which was presented by Nicolau at he city counsel meeting last night. During his presentation to counsel he noted the archives showed the land was leveled in preparation for the return of our troops from world war two. Nicolau remarked that the park was part of our proud heritage and should be preserved.

Someone did not do their homework at the city. Thankfully, Nicolau did. Rickman and Abercrombie wanted the issue on the next agenda.

It will be interesting to see if it is on the agenda and who is responsible for this debacle. Maciel wanted to sell park to a developer. That hasn't happened yet but he might just get his way.

Let's make sure city hall understands that citizens, not developers, vote to put them in office. November is coming.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 03, 2012
RIT

By th way, ya do know that Nicolau is a lawyer don't ya? Who is he representin an who is payin his fees? Is he doin it pro bono fer th benefit of Tracy Citizens an th City of Tracy or is thair another agenda here that we don't see?

Ya see lawyers involved in political issues tend ta be more like politicians so if ya don't trust yer elected politicians on City Council I am really wonderin why yer puttin so much faith in what a lawyer that's dabblin with political issues is really tellin ya.

Could ya explain it cus I would really like ta know?

Why does this have ta be a political issue right before an election? Why wasn't it important before or after th election? Thair seems ta be a lot more ta all of this than meets th eye don't it?

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 03, 2012
RIT

Here's specifically what carnsarns me on this topic.

Th below was copied frum th article TP did titled "Lawyer seeks answers to airport issues" written by Jon Mendelson on Sep 20, 2012.

"me-here

|

September 21, 2012

Thank you Steve Nicolau and Mark Connolly for your involvement on the Airport issue. As a citizen of Tracy, I want our 4002 feet back on the runway no matter WHAT about the City. I understand the new paving would go only the 3996 which does NOT set well with me.

The airport is an unutilized jewel because the Council and staff don't have planes and can see the value because they are so in love with Serpa and Souza. Remember this November 6th."

Strikingly similar ta previous political thangs that have been intentionally stirred up right before a City Council election. Interestin an very "casual ta th most obvious observer" don't ya thank? (Note, th phrase is intentionally done wrong fer effect in order ta get my message across.)

Like ta be used as a political pawn so someone can make a lot of money fer themselves? I don't an don't thank ya do either.

Lawyers, politicians an used car salesmen. All seem ta be cut frum th same bolt of cloth.

Kind of like babies really, cry when they want somethang, an fill thair diapers which need ta be change often before they smell up th rest of th place.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 03, 2012
RIT

Ya know somethang, I just noticed it an wonder why.

This article was printed on Sep 21, 2012 but th article written by Jon which attracted most of th attention of press readers who responded ta it was written on Sep 20, 2012 an has been taken down so ya can't read it unless ya search th web.

Wonder why that is an th press felt it necessary ta write a slightly different article on th same type of issue relational ta City Council Politics?

Seems thair's an agenda here that many people are not seein.
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 03, 2012
Of course. I noticed that about Tracy Press too. Glad it's obvious to others and not just me.
sugarbee80
|
October 03, 2012


Realintracy,

Why did you state "Maciel wanted to sell park to a developer. That hasn't happened yet but he might just get his way"? Do you really think the park will be sold when so many people don't want it? I have spoken with three candidates and one sitting council member who are against the proposed project. Also, I heard that Mayor Ives was the one who put a stop on the project going forward without notifying the residents in the ball park neighborhood.

Realintracy
|
October 02, 2012
Ornely,

I appreciate civil discourse/discussions. The point you brought up about a legal document is appropriate if this was going to court. Let us hope that does not happen because in the end lawyers make money and the public loses money. A win for attorneys, a waste of scant public resources.

A petion is a useful tool to gauge public sentiment over an issue. With regard to the ball field I would submit that baseball, football, soccer etc share several similarities. They involve people, teams, athletics and of course, a ball.

Given the sad state of fitness in our society as a whole, having a venue where people come together in a positive environment and play/practice should be encouraged.

RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 02, 2012
For safety reasons alone, I'm all for moving this. Anywhere, but where it is now located. I am actually very glad they raised this issue, I had noticed kids crossing the Boulevard before. Very dangerous. And I cannot see why anyone in their right mind would oppose moving it.

Dr. Powers would have been a better location. They could have installed a crosswalk at the school. There are tennis courts, baseball courts too already there. Much safer location.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 03, 2012
RHCP

Got yer parks confused. Thair ain't a baseball diamond in Dr. Power's park, just an ole expensive ta maintain swimmin pool that should have been replaced years ago, different story but relevant ta this discussion, a train steam engine that's behind a chain link fence whair only th vandals can get in an destroy it, swing sets that had ta be removed because they didn't meet ADA requirements, tennis courts whair th lights are usually left on when no on is out thair playin on em, an a BBQ pick nick area that does get a lot of use when th kids aren't hangin thair defacin it. But no baseball diamond.

Lincoln park has a diamond an perhaps ya were thankin of that park. Thair's also two diamonds across th street frum Dr. Powers next ta th school that belong ta th Boys an Girls club an it gets a lot of use. Maybe ya were thankin of that City owned facility.

RIT

I agree an hope it don't go ta court but we both know it will probably end up thair. After all that's th main drive behind all this hoopla when ya go back ta th original article written by th press ta inflame public sympathies.

So since it's probably gonna end up in court wouldn't it be prudent ta do it right th first time instead of wastin th time an people's frustrations an havin ta do it again? It's not all that difficult ta do thangs th right way really.

Besides, havin a bunch of names on a piece of paper don't really have much say so if that paper isn't constructed accordin ta th legal guidelines. Ya just as well might have five people sit down with a Tracy phone book an transcribe names on that petition an it would have th same weight of meanin ta th folks yer tryin ta get ta listen ta yer point of view.

Now if those 600 people all went an stood en mass in front of City Council, that would be somethang they couldn't deny. An hopefully another 600 ta 1,000 would also show up ta tell council how they feel about it. That or circulate a petition that is meets th legal requirements an present that ta council.

Th petition as it now stands really ain't worth th paper it's written on because it could easily forged an manufactured ta indicate somethang that isn't.

I agree with yer comment on football an baseball have some common similarities with respect ta use needs. Whair I am stickin on, because ya want ta stick ta somethang ya can't prove regardin how th park was ta be used ferever when th article clearly sayin Mr. Ritter's grandfather, accordin ta Mr. Ritter, sold th property ta th city fer $10, somethang verifiable, an a handshake that it would remain a BALL PARK or more specifically a baseball park. Now ya wanna change that ta include football an while I thank that football is fine it does extend beyond what th claim that it was ta be used fer a BALL PARK.

Someone else, if I am not mistaken, also wants ta use it ta practice hittin golf balls too. So, how many ball games are ya gonna include under what was alleged ta initially be a BALL PARK?

I also agree with ya about havin a veue where people can come tagether in a positive environment an play/practice. I do encourage that type of activity.

What I am after though is ta provide that venue as quickly an economically possible ta th greatest number of people an that involves gettin rid of th present facility an usin those monies in a better fashion ta achieve th maximum benefit fer all instead of panderin ta th selfish needs of just th few who happen ta live next ta th present facility.

Now if ya wanna honor Grandpa Ritter, an his family, name th new facility after him. I wouldn't mind that because his gift then would have a longer lastin overall benefit ta th community without bein a burden on it because it's currently too small an too costly ta maintain effectively.

Ya do know, of course, thair use ta be a park whair Tracy Hospital is an another one whair th Community Center is. What about th nostalgic value of those parks? No one seems much concarned about those parks now are they?

Th point is that thangs change an we need ta be flexible enough change with em.

Take SF Golden Gate park fer instance. Th California Science Center/Museum completely replaced th old Museum. Havin a fond memory of th old museum I personally thank they made a mistake an put in somethang more politically theme oriented as they present science ta people with a political agenda.

But that is what th people of SF apparently wanted so they completely did away with th old an constructed, over several years, somethang entirely different.

Now they did it on th same land because they had enough land ta do th job. Here in Tracy th present size of th facility don't facilitate completely rebuildin th Ball Park thair because its small size ain't big enough ta accommodate th entire need an a little more than one mile away th City already has th land an has designated it fer such use that would better accommodate th need an at a much more affordable price th th City an thus th Citizens of Tracy.

An don't thank fer a second I haven't noticed an apparent change in th original claim. First it was ta be used fer a Ball Park. Now it's said it was ta be used fer a Ball filed (Field and your words not mine) OR, (note the big OR as it's now an addition ta th original claim fer use) a Park.

So, since we have land that use ta be parks now used fer other purposes, why cannot this land, currently a Ball Park, be used th same way fer th greater benefit of th community.

People wanna put stock in nostalgia an precedence but when ya look at history with a critical examination that nostalgia takes a back seat ta th greater needs of th community.

Note: While th Community Center does sit on City Property, it's no longer a park an Tracy Sutter Hospital is owned by Sutter an that park land was originally th property of Tracy. So much for nostalgia an parks in perpetuity.

I note ya also wanna make this a political whippin post. If Council decides ta sell th park it's gonna require Council ta vote it as a majority vote. That pretty much means that Maciel is gonna have ta have at least two other supporters on a five person council ta get it ta pass. What are ya goin ta do if it passes three ta two or worse a perfect majority? Throw all of em out of office?

Mike ain't th only player in this other than he has openly expressed his opinion. An, havin historically observed council, if presented with some solid information indicating a different path, he very well could change his mind.

You will agree, I hope, that thair are a number of people who would like ta divest th city of this Ball Park an use th money at th Sports Park? What type of elected representation do those folks deserve? Don't they have an input via a councilman just like everyone else?

But we do agree that it will be interesting to see how all of this pans out. I am hopeful it will go accordin ta my feelins. You are hopeful it will go along with yers. Either way, it's gonna turn out one way or th other an regardless of th outcome it's my hope it tarns out what's best fer th entire city as it's th entire city's children that will end up with th benefit an ultimately th long term price tag no matter which way it goes.
Realintracy
|
October 02, 2012
Ornely,

The community park is an asset that affords the sports leagues a place to practice and play. The city hired a consultant and presented a plan to sell the property and develop it, possibly as apartments. There was some public input and a brief discussion by council. Maciel supported the idea of selling the park and rezoning. Rickman indicated he would not support such a change.

Mr Ritter indicated his grandfather had intended for the land to be used as a park and indicated there was a handshake deal. The city has abided by that deal for many years. Neighbors and affected citizens started a petition to voice their opinions. In other words, they got involved, which is a good thing. Is it a legal document? No, probably not, it doesn't need to be. Citizens have right to petition their representatives, to communicate with them on issues of concern.

Having a neighborhood sports park in mid town benefits kids and families. There are not enough fields in town. Holly will be a welcome addition, but needs to be just that, an addition, not a trade, in many peoples opinion.

With regard to your previous posts you were being inappropriate and I called you on it.

RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 02, 2012
Realintracy,

I applaud you for getting involved, even if the petition is illegal. But that park has several safety issues. Were any of those safety issues addressed?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
realintracy

So you can be civil with out derogatory adhomonym attacks when you want to. Good! As long as that remains we can have a discussion that just might produce some good fruit.

1. "The community park is an asset that affords the sports leagues a place to practice and play. The city hired a consultant and presented a plan to sell the property and develop it, possibly as apartments."

Let's un-bundle tat shall we?

True, the "Community park" not neighborhood park is an asset that affords sports leagues a place to practice and play. Never said it didn't. The problem is that it costs more to keep it running than the amenity it provides those sports leagues a place to practice and play.

2. "The city hired a consultant and presented a plan to sell the property and develop it, possibly as apartments."

A partial truth. Yes the city apparently hired a consultant. But it was the consultant and not the city that presented a possible plan to sell the property and possibly develop it into apartments or something else. That's what consultants are supposed to do, offer you a set of alternative plans. Anything wrong with that? I personally do not think so.

3. "There was some public input and a brief discussion by council. Maciel supported the idea of selling the park and rezoning. Rickman indicated he would not support such a change."

True, there was public discussion, one counsel supported the idea of selling the park and rezoning the land and another indicated he wouldn't support such a change. Still, the item was not closed and it's all still open for discussion.

What? You don't want to have any discussion or input from anyone before such a decision might be made? It seems that your are. And who is to say that either councilman might change his mind when they are presented with more information? You sound as if it's already locked in stone when the decision really hasn't been made?

4. "Mr Ritter indicated his grandfather had intended for the land to be used as a park and indicated there was a handshake deal. The city has abided by that deal for many years."

Were you there? Was Mr. Ritter even there? And if the grandfather was such a noble person, as I believe he is, would he intentionally hamstring the City of Tracy regarding this park for the rest of eternity? The city abide by that deal for many years is speculative unless you can somehow prove that was in fact the deal. And as much as I want to believe Mr. Ritter and take him at his word I have followed humanity for all of my life and know how sometime things get twisted around. That's why contracts like this are usually in writing or at the very least there are many others that can testify as to what actually went on. But the fact it was apparently donated and used for a Ball Park for many years is true and I do appreciate that. Question - Since this, in your opinion, was stipulated to be used as a Ball Park, where does that leave the football and soccer leagues who also play there and practice there? I suppose to be specific, if you are correct and we are to abide by the grandfather's wishes, only baseball should be allowed there. See how complex things can get when you get down to specifics that you really can't prove are specifics?

5. "Neighbors and affected citizens started a petition to voice their opinions. In other words, they got involved, which is a good thing. Is it a legal document? No, probably not, it doesn't need to be. Citizens have right to petition their representatives, to communicate with them on issues of concern."

First of all, not all "neighbors affected citizens" are involved in this. Some are and some are not and that is the true fact. And yes, it's a great thing that they are getting involved. Never said it wasn't. But as to the fact if it's a legal document or not is important and it really needs to be. Here's the thinking on that. Why waste the time? Why not just cut to the chase, do it correctly and then you have some real firepower for council to listen to instead of some half baked petition that essentially tells the council nothing because all of the data could be falsified and manufactured. Why the exorcize in futility when there is a better way that can just as easily be done with a little preparation? That's what frustrates people. When they think they have taken their time to accomplish something and then find out they haven't really accomplished anything. And it's why we have rules concerning petitions and how they are to be administered. Taking shortcuts only gets you into trouble.

6. "Having a neighborhood sports park in mid town benefits kids and families."

First of all the Ball Park, not sports park, is not mid town. It's situated on the North Side of town. Mid town, geographically speaking is down by Tracy Blvd and Schulte. Don't believe me? Take a look at present day Tracy's map. Not to mention the other Sports park, something broader in scope an intent than the present Ball Park, is 1.1 miles further north on Tracy Blvd. 1.1 miles as compared to the "five" miles someone tried to pawn off as a factoid. (Yes factoid is in the dictionary.)

7. "There are not enough fields in town."

Well we do agree on something. Now the major question is how much longer do we want to dilly dally around before we create more fields? Another 5, 10, 15, 20 years? How many children will grow up without the ability to play on fields that do not currently exist before the fields become a reality? You see it's a much bigger equation than just you and me. It involves all citizens and children yet unborn. What about them and their needs?

8. "Holly will be a welcome addition, but needs to be just that, an addition, not a trade, in many peoples opinion."

Yes, it will be a welcome addition. But it does not need to be just an addition to the current Ball Park as it's really an addition to all the parks in the park system regardless of some people's opinions. There are other people that have other opinions and they are just as valid or invalid as ours. Opinions are great but don't confuse them for facts or reality.

Question. If your grandfather gave you a car, and because of it's age you found that it would be cheaper for you to sell it and use the money to buy something nicer and cheaper to maintain and operate, would you keep your grandfathers car or would you suppose he would think it was a good idea for you to sell it and use the money for something better?

The same thing applies here. The current Ball Park costs a lot of money to keep running, has a lot of problems with it and doesn't even come close to meeting the current need.

Now if you could sell it and use those monies by investing them in a larger, newer facility that's cheaper to maintain, comes closer to meeting the need and doesn't have the same problems associated with the current Ball Park, doesn't it make more sense to get rid of the old Ball Park and more quickly develop the new one to better serve all the citizens of Tracy? I think so and so do many others.

8. "With regard to your previous posts you were being inappropriate and I called you on it."

Call what you want, I believed them to be completely appropriate and am certain that many others do as well. But you do have a right to your own opinion, I shall grant you that.

I hope you see that I have dropped my usual Ornley persona just for you. I don't want to confuse you and hope to be clearly understood.

Let's stop bickering about a stupid piece of land when there is land to be developed 1.1 miles away that will better fill the requirements of our citizenry.

Now if you desire to politely, intelligently, factually and civilly discuss alternatives, I shall be more than happy to comply.

I don't represent council or any other interest group but I do desire to see what is done is best for ALL of Tracy and not a select few who are resistant to change and do not presently see the greater needs for everyone in the community if for no other reason that it's inconvenient for them.

I try to accommodate convenience where it is possible and believe that ALL our council and members of City Staff do as well. But there comes a point where the convenience of one is outweighed by the convenience and needs of the greater body of citizens who comprise the City of Tracy.

I like and appreciate nostalgia as much as the next person. But sometimes my nostalgia has to be set aside for the greater good of everyone. The trick is to get it accomplished as quickly as possible so those needs are met quickly. That way everyone benefits and that is a good thing.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
RIT

Item 6. The word should have been exercise and not exorcise. Sorry about that, I don't want to confuse anyone.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
Sorry again, make that item 5.
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 01, 2012
Gotta love the "grass roots" movement the Tracy press promoting in Tracy.

One guy is always opposed to everything and nothing gets done except the arguing.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
RHCP

It's probably because most grass-roots movements are rooted in th dirt an are unwillin ta move out of th dirt. So th only thang they really know is th dirt they sling around in th appearance of accomplishin somethang while actually accomplishin nothin.

Many people, myself included at times, are guilty of sayin, "I don't like that, thair oughta be a law," an movin on as if somethang positive was achieved.
Realintracy
|
October 01, 2012


If people would educate thairselves on how th city does its business an how ta work with th process instead of continually buckin th I wouldn't belittle anyone.

1- The City is supposed to do the citizens business.

2- Thank you for admitting you belittle people. Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

But when people like yerself yammer on an on innuendos an factoids without any supportin proof yes, I do get a little snippy.

1-Inuendos and factoids? The two words seem to be at odds with each other. Well, if they were spelled correctly. Could you provide a source for your definition....perhaps the, "Slang, Hillbilly Dickshioaree."

2-Snippy-Appreciate that admission-See above Re: recovery.

An another part of dismissiveness, of which I am guilty, is when some lamebrain tries pawn off an obvious prevarication as if it is truth, such as attemptin ta tell people that thair gonna have ta drive five miles further ta get ta th new park when th present Ball Park is only a mile away.

1-"Dismissive (a word) Guilty"-Enough said

2-Lamebrain-Use your words,don't call names.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
See what I mean?

Instead of addressin th issues ya attack those who don't thank like ya do.

In short, yer part of th problem an not a part of th solution.

Th city can't do th citizen's business if they don't have th citizens workin with em.

Try puttin yer ego aside fer a change an work with em ta achieve what's best fer every one an not just ya.

Sorry, I won't stroke yer ego by continuin this line of conversation with ya. Now if ya wanna do somethang proactive fer everyone, I am interested. But I am no longer interested in listen ta yer personal complaints about everythang an everyone else.

With respect ta this conversation with ya yes, I am dismissive because it's obvious ya only care about yerself. In that I am guilty.

With respect to lamebrain. I called no one a lamebrain other than people who exhibit th qualities of what I was talkin about when I used th word.

Ya enjoy takin thangs out of context fer yer Ad hominem attacks on people who don't subscribe ta yer narrow, self centered way of thankin, which is th lowest form of communication imaginable.

So, rather than play yer foolish game I opt not ta play with ya at all. CONT
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
Innuendo, is that better? As if ya didn't know what was bein said.

Factoids, Look it up it's in th dictionary fool.

Now take your mindless whimpering an go impress your friends because they don't impress me or any other thinking citizen in Tracy.

Enough said.
Realintracy
|
October 01, 2012
So yes, yer havin a little temper tantrum an, like with my grand children when they do it, after ignorin em fer awhile, hopin they will stop, I eventually put my foot down an it gets a little ugly.

1-I am not one of your grandchildren (I can spell)

2-I am not having a temper tamtrum

3-Sorry to hear about your ugly feet.

Don't want ta be treated like a spoiled child? Then stop actin like one an start actin like a responsible adul

1-I would suggest that actions are more demonstrative of a petulant child who suffers from a superiority complex as a result of not receiving unconditional love from their mommy. In short, treatment, think....treatment!

Realintracy
|
October 01, 2012
Cose,

Temper tantrum? No. I have researched Ornleys comments extensively and found that he has consistently belittled everyone that expresses their concerns about the way the city does our business. Ornley then goes on an omnipotent rant in keeping with the wizard behind the curtain.

I suggest you do some research before you decide to side with Ornley and mislabel me.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 01, 2012
RIT

If people would educate thairselves on how th city does its business an how ta work with th process instead of continually buckin th I wouldn't belittle anyone. But when people like yerself yammer on an on innuendos an factoids without any supportin proof yes, I do get a little snippy.

An another part of dismissiveness, of which I am guilty, is when some lamebrain tries pawn off an obvious prevarication as if it is truth, such as attemptin ta tell people that thair gonna have ta drive five miles further ta get ta th new park when th present Ball Park is only a mile away.

So yes, yer havin a little temper tantrum an, like with my grand children when they do it, after ignorin em fer awhile, hopin they will stop, I eventually put my foot down an it gets a little ugly.

Don't want ta be treated like a spoiled child? Then stop actin like one an start actin like a responsible adult.
rosa62
|
October 01, 2012
Ornley sounds just like Councilman Maciel doesn't he?
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 02, 2012
rosa62,

You seem new, here.

I think what Onnley_Gumfudgen is saying is simple.

If people want to act silly, he's willing to wade in.

I could be wrong. You could just ask him yourself.

RedHotChilliPeppers
|
October 02, 2012
rosa62,

I think Ornely_Gumfudgen is saying he does not mind wading in.

How is that negative? If people don't say anything, would you prefer that?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
rosa62

An strangely enough ya sound like a TRAQC supporter.

Ya don't present any facts, just mindless complaints Ad hominem attacks an baseless innuendo. Why should I or anyone else give a person like that any respectful consideration?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
RHCP

Up ta a point an then th stomach finally churns an out comes th less tolerant side of Ornley.

You an I don't always agree but we can at least work tagether. You ask, I ask. Neither of us puts our thoughts in th other person's mouth, which is reams more than can be said fer some of th complainers here.
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
RHCP

I thank she an others would rather I go away an say nothin. That way they have thair nice little forum whair no one disagrees with em because they don't bother ta understand how thangs work or how best ta get thangs accomplished.

Take th petition fer instance. Will it stand up ta th scrutiny of a legal petition or is it a mindless exercise in futility an a waste of time?

Hopefully it's legal but I would wager it ain't an consequently a waste of time or th appearance of doin somethang while actually accomplishin nothin.
dcose
|
October 02, 2012
Mislabel Temper Tantrum and Whining? The call stands.
dcose
|
October 02, 2012
BTW You didn't count to one million before the latest response did you...

:-)
Realintracy
|
October 01, 2012
Hey Ornely,

Did you read the part about a consultant gave a presentation to the council? Read that, the city paid someone to work on a plan and then put it before council prematurely.

Rickman expressed his opposition in advance to high density apartment on the site. Maciel however supported selling the property to a developer.

So, the city paid for another half baked plan that would disadvantage citizens. Maciel supported lining another developers pockets. Once again Rickman was the only one to stand up for the citizens.

As usual, you take the administrations side, and declare all those opposed as hysterical ignoramuses, or vapid reactionaries.

kud u defyne the word "is" wood b intrestin to reed ur veshone.....bill, war r u billl......
dcose
|
October 01, 2012
Unrealintracy

"...and declare all those opposed as hysterical ignoramuses, or vapid reactionaries."

I didn't pick it out but will take your word you've about covered it. The histrionics and vapid reactionaries we can do without. State your position... be prepared to defend it, and please... grow a thicker skin.

As is customary, your temper tantrum leaves you unable to comprehend reasoned responses. Try counting to one million, then comeback and see about playing nice. Why take his writing as an affront.
JonnoB
|
October 01, 2012
This ballpark is currently used by two local youth football non-profit organizations nearly every night of the week for 5 months out of the year. One of those has been in this town for 39 years.

The proposal does not contemplate or provide for the following things that the programs depend upon. For example:

1) Many of the kids (as young as 6 years old) depend on foot and bicycle transportation to get to and from practice. Moving it to the edge of town and across a freeway for daily practice is not feasible.

2) A build-out at Holly Sugar would happen only after the property was sold. This would be down-time of a minimum of 1 year, and quite possible 2-3 years while the programs would not have an alternative location in which to practice.

3) The programs depend on the benefit of marketing by "sight" - ie, a rather large percentage of kids join because they see others there practicing.

4) The projected fees could not build out the same amenities to supprot youth football. The two organizations each have 4 levels of football. To get the same with bathrooms, storage, bleachers, and most importantly, lights.

Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
October 02, 2012
JonnoB

Some lucid facts an thoughts, thank you.

First, how long a place has been used is not really all that relevant to th topic of replacin th Park with a new facility. But it does indicate an ongoing need fer such facilities.

I don't know about you but I don't believe that 6 year-olds need to be wanderin around anywhare walkin or on a bike without thair parents so let's be a little more reasonable on this.

1. First ya make it sound as if th edge of town is a long way away frum th present park. Th most dangerous parts of th travel ain't around th freeway because of th overpasses an th only traffic usually movin through em are goin in an out of town.

Th actual traffic dangers are along th streets an regardless if it's one mile away on th edge of town or where it is taday that danger is still gonna exist. So, on th tally sheet of benefits versus deficits it's a push. No real gain an no real deficit.

"Daily practice is not feasible?" Why not? At one time before Tracy built around th present park it was feasible. An why is it feasible fer other communities all through th country an not feasible fer Tracy? Sorry but it is feasible because if they wanna play thair gonna show up.

An if thair parents can't get them thair safely then that's another problem entirely now ain't it?

2. In as much as th present facility don't meet th current needs, two ball fields an a practice football field, how do these leagues currently manage? Surely practice fer all th teams occurs in this one park. You know this as well as I do because we all know it occurs all over town.

I doubt it would take three months ta sell th current property an if a good buyer that has th interest of th community in thair hearts perhaps that buyer would allow th city ta continue ta use th Park until th other facilities could be brought on line. But strangely no one seems ta have thought of this angle of attack to th immediate problem. It's not unrealistic ta thank that if properly coordinated th new facility could be up an runnin in a year an remove th necessity of practice an play all over town out ta a facility designed ta meet th need consolidated inta one place fer better management.

Will this be th end all need? No, but it goes a long way towards achievin that goal.

3. Less by "sight" an more like bein with friends who enjoy doin th same thang. Or do ya have some factual statistics ta prove that observation? Somethang whair th provider of th information is not biased? I would entertain such information an reconsider my line of thankin on this.

But I know kids that live miles away from ever seein these types of thangs on a regular basis that get involved with these sports. Not because they see other kids wantin ta play but because they wanna play.

An if ya wanna expose yer kid ta such activities, which I believe is a good thang fer any parent ta do, is it all that hard an too much trouble ta drive a mile past th site when thangs are goin on thair? When my kids were little th present park was on th opposite of town frum whair I lived. I literally lived on th south city limits an it was situated on th North City Limits. I had no reason ta even go on that side of town because it was several miles out of my way, yet fer th benefit of my children, I did. Are our children not worth our time an trouble? Sometimes it seems so doesn't it? Not sayin that you don't or don't care about yer children but ya do know what I am talkin about.

4. So let those leagues do th same thang th baseball leagues have done an lets get those amenities ta support youth football built shall we? Th trouble is that most kids wanna play baseball an soccer. While it would be nice ta facilitate use fer all sports unfortunately it comes down ta money. An when yer spendin money, if yer a prudent spender, ya like ta get th most bang fer yer buck. So it would seem natural since baseball an soccer are currently th predominate sports that kids seem ta wanna play that they get th support they need. Would love ta see football in th mix. So perhaps th football leagues ought ta come ta th table like th baseball an soccer leagues id an hammer out somethang that will fit that need.

Lights have been an always be a problem. Thair expensive an local neighbor don't really like em. Th lights at th Adult ball park an soccer fields were a problem but eventually those problems an lack of money were solved. Lights on a ball field or football field can be done but thair has ta be a mechanism ta fund em an put in lights that don't disturb local residents. Still, th fields on 11th street prove that it can be done.

It just takes plannin an time. Plannen happens when two parties get tagether an hammer out th details mutually with what both can realistically achieve.

What is achieved fer th greater good by pourin in more money than it should take just ta maintain a facility that no longer is capable of fillin th full need when that facility could be sold an th proceeds frum that sale could go a long way inta completin a facility that costs less ta maintain an comes light years closer inta fillin th need fer th greater number of children that would like ta play?

We've dinked around fer years over this, years whair children that could have played have now grown older an diverted thair attentions ta somethan else. How much longer are we gonna sit around wastin time before we really address thair needs? How many more children will have th same childhood waitin fer somethang that never gets built an they can't play cus thair's no facility thair fer em ta play on? Some play on th existin facility cus thair's room fer em ta play. How many more could play but can't because thair ain't enough of th facility left ta go around?

Will it be slam dunk easy? No, it won't. But it can be orchestrated ta happen over a shorter period of time an end up with a lot more fer th kids than we presently are providin em at a much lower cost ta th city as a whole an that equates ta havin more money available ta do even more.

It's kind of like managin yer family budget. Yep I shore would like ta have steak every night an see every show that comes out in th theater or on th movie screen. Then I'd like ta fish an hunt everyday as well. But that ain't practical an not feasible under my family's budget. So it requires a bit of plannin, a bit of savin, a bit of sacrifice an a bit of time for me ta put it all inta a format that is enjoyable an affordable.

Thanks fer yer comments an hopefully I have given ya some encouragement an idea on how ta proceed. An thanks fer not bein insultin, it's refreshin.

sugarbee80
|
October 01, 2012
At this time Save the Ball Park group has 600 signatures to stop the project.
MrSycamore
|
September 25, 2012
If we can get statistics or reports to support the park then let's keep it. Otherwise, develop! We have a lot of parks throughout the City that our youth have access to. Have the developers put a nice park adjacent to this development.
RedHotChilliPeppers
|
September 24, 2012
I dont believe anything the Tracy Press says anymore.

One year they say they want a five year plan from the city.

The next year they say they want to start again at grass roots.

I believe the Tracy Press never represented grass roots, but instead yellow journalism.

Just because you're bankrupt doesnt mean you're fresh.
Realintracy
|
September 23, 2012
Ross, it isn't an attempt, it is the way the Mayor and much if the council, do business. We pay for their arrogant misdeeds
rosa62
|
September 23, 2012
It is my understanding that Councilman Maciel is running his campaign out of Les Serpa's office at Serlund Development.

Any truth to that?
rosa62
|
September 22, 2012
Is this another attempt by the City and it's Manager to ram their wants and desires down the throat of the City Council and the tax payers who pay his excessive salary?
Ornley_Gumfudgen
|
September 21, 2012
Question.

How long must you discuss thangs? From my recollection th City an it's residents have been discussin what ta do with th Ball Park, with various scenarios, fer th past 22 ta 25 years. Seems like discussions are not makin much in th way of progress as what ta do with this facility.

If ya thank that everyone is gonna be happy with th outcome, either way, yer sadly mistaken. So, what, ya gonna continue ta waste time while ya poor yet more money inta a loosin proposition called th Tracy Ball Park. Just how much more discussion needs ta take place here? A month, six months, a year, 25 years? How long is this gonna be "discussed" an how much more money is gonna be spent?

Come from th community? Whair do you thank th ideas come frum? Someone talks ta th City an they respond. Th City ain't all that good in comin up with these ideas on thair own. So I am wonderin, who in th community is against doin anythang an who is fer it? What with a quarter of a century of discussion I am of th opinion it's time ta act an stop wastin any more time.


We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.