Ceetar

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I think it's a neat idea. But I think it's difficult to create Wrigleyville. It kind of has to happen on its own. Housing would keep people in the area year-round instead of just one game days. There has been minimal development of shops and things around Comerica in Detroit -- though it is Detroit. Houston, Cleveland and Pittsburgh seemed to have some nice things going on. Denver was still too new when I was there. Cincy has some things, but you have to walk a bit. You think we'd fail to create our own Wrigleyville? Pittsburgh, I was there in '06. at the time, was some decent stuff outside. No idea what it looks like when the place isn't completely packed. (you know, a normal game) San Diego started with basically nothing around it. now they've got some skyscraping office buildings, and a lot going on nearby in the gaslight area, although it's not _right_ next to the park. Denver doesn't have much. There's a really awesome brewery right there, but otherwise not really much. Might as well keep going. St. Louis has some stuff going on, but it's downtown and except for a couple of restaurants, a lot of it closes down with the 9-5 workday. Oakland's horrible. get out of there ASAP! (they're moving anyway) SF was okay, but not really much down there either. Nothing by the Dodgers. Anaheim overlooks the freeway and it's pretty much residential around there. Miami is just off the highway. nothing. They're moving as well. Balitmore is in the harbor area. I found the surrounding area pretty nice, but it's not ballpark related. It just happens to be where everythings going on in general. This oculd be because there is nothing going on with the Orioles though. Philly's much like Citi. In a big parking lot. also with the other teams, and it's a disaster to get out of if they overlap. I remember walking to Chickie and pete's between double headers, but it wasn't acxross the street or anything.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there. Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it? If they made it worth my while to go elsewhere? possibly.. That's just it; given ED hanging over the proceedings, you almost definitely wouldn't be getting as much as you would on the open market. Ceetar wrote: In this economy, a project like this has to generate a decent amount of jobs, and the businesses that will take their place will generate a lot more jobs too. That has to have value as well. So would building and running a giant abattoir for "processing" the homeless. (And hey! Two civic blights solved!) [i'm not saying that paving over "Hubcaps, Hubcaps, Hubcaps" and putting up a few Johnny Rockets is the moral equivalent of that... but it isn't a slam dunk that these ends justify the worm-can-opening inherent in their means.] can of worms? I mean.. I understand that there are questions about if it should or shouldn't be possible, but isn't the law already in existence? Hasn't this been determined to be legitimate? I mean, we can get into debates about government and corruption and all that, but this isn't some loophole is it? Or is it an interpretation thing on what falls under eminent domain?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there. Would you like it if the government confiscated your land from you because there was a big pothole in front of it? If they made it worth my while to go elsewhere? possibly.. In this economy, a project like this has to generate a decent amount of jobs, and the businesses that will take their place will generate a lot more jobs too. That has to have value as well.

I'm all for whoever makes Francessa sound stupidest in the weekly interviews.

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, but once we let that genie is out of the bottle, we don't really get a say in how he behaves next. I think the genie's already out of the bottle. We don't get a say here do we?

TransMonk wrote: I'm not overly optimistic about the prospect of any of them. I think Collins will get the job and end up stinking up the joint. Luckily, that'll be an improvement. *sigh* I think I'm hoping for Backman these days, but really I just want someone that's not going to be hurting the team.

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think it's fair to characterize all the businesses as operating on the shady side. If the city failed to enforce laws and regulations as well as provide the services that their tax dollars entitled them to, who is to be surprised that folks would slide toward Wild West ethics? There will certailny be opportunities for these business owners. But the greater point remains that using eminent domain (or the threat of eminent domain) for commercial development is abusive and a scary precedent. If the manager fails to enforce discipline or rules, who's surprised when the players look a little sloppy or unprepared? (this to a common acquisition that the Mets are soft and don't care or whatever) I don't know that they all are, but that's the impression I get from people talking about them. I wonder if those businesses would be unhappy if the city decided totake an interest in the area, non-eminent domain like? I'm only looking at it as it applies to Willets Point, where I think it's a good idea. Other situations, not so much. But this certainly isn't the government bulldozing homes to build a freeway. or an intergallatic bypass.

I don't know how I'd feel, as I don't actually own a business. It's hard to extrapolate. But I think i'd see the opportunity to move on from an area like that, whoever's fault it is, if the deal is really a good one as some have made it out to be. I'm conflicted on it, but ultimately I think the area, and the businesses, will all be better off. Moving to a 'real' street with paved roads and no floods and what not seems to be a good business decision. A lot of what made that area successful was word of mouth and the reputation it had as the place to go for whatever. They won't be able to cut corners as easily and do whatever they do there. Probably can't leave cars filled with garbage and car parts sitting on the sidewalk in College Point or whereever they relocate to, but thety wouldn't be able to do that if the city paved the area and cleaned it up all nice either.

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, the displacing of private businesses for the purpose of using that land for different private businesses is specifically NOT what eminent domain was designed to do - even if a recent (and egregious IMO) Supreme Court ruling says that it's allowable. NYC shouldn't neglect to pave roads and install sewers and then act as if it's the fault of the locals because the place is an eyesore on account of there being no sewers and big potholes. Plus the charge that they're all illegal chop shops and the like kind of falls to the ground when you consider that the city was openly doing business with some of them for construction and iron work while building CitiField. . Isn't the idea of 'affordable' housing and a school enough 'public good' or whatever? I understand that this is pushing it, but just because it's partially the city's fault that the area is so decrepit shouldn't mean they shouldn't look to make better use of it either. And they've given tons of warning. I know i'm incredibly biased because I'd like that area to be fun and nice for personal use, but it seems like people leaving the area have been happy with the deals they're getting, and part of the reason the ones that are unhappy are unhappy, is because they won't be able to exploit underhanded deals between each other as much. Besides, I feel like the area basically has to close whenever it rains or snows. Those potholes fill up to be basically lakes. I wouldn't drive there.

Hey, they've started. no TV though I imagine. I'd watch..

G-Fafif wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: And this is not a national holiday WHY? Congrats - and thank you! -- Mr. Seaver! Please ask everyone you see what their plans are for Tom Seaver's birthday. It's the only way we'll get critical mass rolling. on my desk at work.

Excepting sweet group-ticket/meal deals, I see little to recommend the joint, frankly. It's noisy, uncomfortable, and about as fan- and fam-unfriendly as the inside isn't. I'm hoping for some Mom and Pop Paysonville action... or at least something that reflects the actual diversity of the surrounding-- or, rather, nearby-- neighborhoods. I'd like to be able to buy actual elote with my "Phuck the Phillies" t-shirts, IOW. McFadden's isn't great, but i was comparing it to not having anything. It's a typical sports bar attached to a park. probably exactly the same as Phillies. But it's not a bad meeting point, as compared to reading every brick in the fanwalk (which I assume will get boring after about 2014 or so once I read them all. I did notice they replaced the Seaver brick though) Like if I'm meeting someone at 6 and I have his ticket, and i'm there at 5:30. I'd hope the new area is nice. I think the probability of elote corn is about as likely as a vendor or restaurant that serves it choosing to lease space there. Whatever it is, it's not going to be a Mets run thing. Now, if you have the capital, and want to invest, I'd be glad to pitch in and we can open up a Crane Pool Forum Grill..

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: So this started. Score one for Mets fans looking for a home neighborhood... and for pretty egregious misuse of eminent domain. I'm of two minds about the subject (as I'd imagine a good portion of you are). What are your specific thoughts? Hopes? Dreams? I'm all for it, and I think this is exactly what eminent domain is for. It's not like these are nice clean businesses. They're run down chop shops in a not so safe area with dogs running around and pot holes big enough to lose Prince Fielder in. (Although I do admit it's a nice shortcut to the GCP if you're over there w/o having to deal with all the other cars) McFadden's is a nice start, but it'd be nice to have a real area to want to stick around. And imagine what the Mets could do on off days, if the area was actually attractive to go to?

Frayed Knot wrote: The fact that no one seems to precisely know who has or has not been eliminated points to the current regime be more leak-proof than in recent years. If so that's a good thing IMO. My guesstimate needle is turning towards Melvin and away from Collins. Is it? I feel like the reporters reported just as much stupid opinion as fact with Omar, and a lot of times it just wasn't noted as much. Particularly when it's not as black and white an answer as a physical manager being selected. "Mets made an offer on Pineiro" "No they didn't" "They never called Pineiro back" "They offered Pineiro XXX ,and refused to budge."

HahnSolo wrote: Very nice. Two questions: 1. The asterisks...what are they for? 2. Is there something that made Jim Palmer "highly temperamental"? He always struck me as pretty bland. The asterisks have to do with those crazy unstable sometimes manmade weird metal elements in the middle like einsteinium.

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: i think the mo's zone is fine. lame name, but i like it. if they modify the walls and fences, i hope the essence of the zone remains. Everyone would've built Citi Field differently. Because it's so new we find ourselves second-guessing the Mets opinion on what it should be and look like. I wonder if people in 1964 questioned Shea? or even the name Mets? I bet there were people that wanted them to be called the Dodgers, or the Atlantics or something. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that if the walls were shifted to Shea's dimensions tomorrow, few would consider it done with. Though, on the other matter, I think "Dodgers" was taken. could've called them the Brooklyn Dodgers of Queens. oh fine.

metsmarathon wrote: i think the mo's zone is fine. lame name, but i like it. if they modify the walls and fences, i hope the essence of the zone remains. Everyone would've built Citi Field differently. Because it's so new we find ourselves second-guessing the Mets opinion on what it should be and look like. I wonder if people in 1964 questioned Shea? or even the name Mets? I bet there were people that wanted them to be called the Dodgers, or the Atlantics or something.

Well of course David Wright wishes the fences were 320 feet. Do you think Santana wants them moved in? Do you think Jimmy Rollins wants Citi's fences moved in?

Pelf's first half was probably up there. but but..i thought Yankee-Red Sox games were long cause of the "strategy?"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's rated L for LESBIANS of course. Ratings? Do people pay attention to those? Only when Lesbians are involved.. for instance D.E.B.S. had lesbians, but it was a little more G rated. still entertained me though, as silly as it was.

Phillies resign Contreras for 2 years. I'm shaking in my boots!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: I could go on and on about how Warthen provides nothing worthwhile. Mike Pelfrey and R.A. Dickey, who know better than you, would disagree. John Maine and Oliver Perez would agree. Besides, when do players rat out their coaches? Wright said they should keep HoJo.

Toby Hyde: breaking down the Mets minor league second basemen 24 hours From Suicide asks who's your favorite Mets lefty? (and needs to learn to spell) New York Fan in South Jersey says Let'sturn back the clockon the Mets This new in 2010 Mets blog made it to early May: You Watch Ball Like a Girl has a conversation with Yoda.

no Strasburg votes? heh. Good job by Posey, since Heyward was the favorite from about March 10th. Ike's midseason slump hurt (not that he had a chance) but he wasn't that far off Heyward. a dozen or so walks and half a dozen hits were probably the difference. Davis actually slugged better. Surprised Garcia didn't get more votes, and I suspect they heavily favored playoff teams here.

what's it rated?