Oakland committee approves full EIR study
- 12.14.10, 19:14
- 118 Comments
The Trib’s Angela Woodall observed the proceedings today. The result? 3-1 in favor of a full EIR study. As expected, the lone dissenter on the committee was Ignacio De La Fuente. The issue will appear before the Oakland City Council next Tuesday, where it should pass. The one important detail:
In the end, the committee added a provision that allows the city to cancel the contract with LSA Associates and pay only for work that has been finished.
That’s a good safety mechanism to put in place, just in case.
@ML – Thanks. Your Cisco example makes sense. I can see where a unique company like that would want to have the convenience of having a local ballpark should they have their own state-of-the-art technology on display there.
@GoA’s – Notwithstanding my multiple spelling errors in my previous post, I meant to add that the wealthy private investors fronting the $120 million would expect yearly payment with interest, i.e. the $4 million plus whatever financing rate that is agreed upon.
@OakAsFan – Stadium builders usually get multiple sources of financing. Lenders force this because the individual loans are secured based on specific revenue streams. These can include private sources such as suite sales, naming rights, and corporate sponsorships. Public sources include sales and sin taxes. At the bottom are highly variable sources like actual ticket sales. The more of that revenue can be locked in (10-year suite, 30-year naming rights), the lower the interest rate. With every corporate or major private interest that doesn’t buy in upfront, the more the debt falls on the highly variable, and thus higher risk/interest service. All stadium builders, whether they are teams or cities or a partnership, want to avoid that as much as possible.
@TonyD–”BRAVO…BRAVO!!!!!”
And now for my encore…..
@ML–all the guys ripping Oakland ad-nauseum for not meeting their standards is okay and you leave them alone. But me, I’m full of crap and unbelievable? Cisco’s getting 4 years free publicity for a park that may never get built in SJ. They should jump on the Oakland ballpark if Oak is picked and see this all the way through. I don’t have a problem with that, if they commit to the money, but it’s just not a very exciting name or company like these bank names is all I’m saying.
@ML – Thank you for the reply. I’m still wondering about the total naming rights dollar amount, whether it’s paid over 30 years or whatever, and how I’ve read that the total construction cost was offset by this exact amount. If the company with that naming rights contract pays the total out over the 30 years, how is the builder getting paid for that today? Are you saying that the builder would go obtain a bank loan themselves securitized in part by the naming rights contract? On that note, what would have happened with the Astros and Enron Field? Did that naming rights amount get passed onto taxpayers? Would the Astros (or Houston) have been treated as a creditor similar to secured bondholders? While Enron’s situation was uncommon, it does happen occasionally and I would suspect the team would have some kind of backup plan.
@jk-usa – Are they ripping Oakland for being bland or suburban or something else that isn’t germane to the discussion? No. Sometimes they talk about Oakland’s fiscal situation, but you and others have also pointed out that San Jose is in a similar situation. You, on the other hand, are quick to ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the tasks at hand. That’s why you get the slapdown.
As I mentioned to OakAsFan, it’s a matter of convenience. Not a slight against Oakland. If Cisco Field doesn’t work out, there’s another stadium they can make a deal with. Think of it this way: the only two naming rights holders for the Coliseum and Arena came from the tech industry, and neither happened quickly, they took years to happen. And that was during boom times. Why did it happen that way, and why were there – still are – no East Bay suitors?
@OakAsFan – Cisco’s payments would be part of the annual debt service. The loans aren’t necessarily going to get signed all at once, the builder has the discretion to do them on a staggered basis. Keep in mind that the builder may also have cash on hand to get the ball rolling. All of the development cost would be paid by the end of the construction period.
@Sid – Have to make an example of you here. This discussion has veered wildly off topic at times, and your comment only makes it worse. I’ve deleted it.
@ML–okay, slapdown accepted and deserved. I get a little carried away at times. Cisco is a very big, very important company, and I know they have some goodies planned for the new ballpark if it’s built, and that can be exciting to better the whole fan experience for some.
Yes, the 49er stadium is a good backup for them, whenever that thing gets off the ground.
As a pro-Oak fan who has never once said a bad thing about SJ, it is posts like these that just make no sense, although it might be humorous to some on here. As one of just a handful of Oakland supporters it’s difficult enough just to be on here, much less have to read unwarranted attacks against the city I’m supporting that add no value to the discussion. My initial reaction is to reply in kind with unflattering comments but I’m not going to resort to that although I can see clearly how someone would. I can see where this is heading and, before it gets ugly, I will just take myself out of the picture and go elsewhere. @jk and others – You may want to as well. To all of the rational posters on here that provided constructive conversations and to ML. Thank you. Good luck to all.
@ ML – not to spark further tension, but damn…..hehe.
@ OakAsFan – thanks for your constructive inquiries. it’s folks like you who are smart enough to ask the questions that need to be asked that will ensure any stadium effort, regardless if it is in Oak or VC, is viable enough to the long term health of the a’s. i appreciate the fact that you can set aside the emotional aspect of these discussion to look at the rationale behind them and hope that you will continue to query these important topics and not let a few folks get to you.
xhttp://www.csncalifornia.com/12/15/10/Ratto-Oakland-still-in-game-for-new-As-s/landing_ratto_v3.html?blockID=374056&feedID=3430
ratto was also on chron live on wed and said that sj hasn’t shown it could raise the money?
huh, what is the 120 million which probably would be 1/3 of what the new park in sj would cost with naming rights. not to mention the svlg letter that has corporations saying they’d support the a’s thru advertising and buying up boxes in all likelyhood.
@letsgoas – Ratto is referring to the halt on land acquisition. Why is it that you guys always retreat to this defensive SJ corporate posture? It’s really tired.
@ ML – will it may be old tired rhetoric, the corporate support (especially the naming rights) is an important element to financing and future revenue stream. I would only challenge ratto on 2 basis: 1) that Oakland has no parcels of land, period while SJ has 80% wrapped up and 2)the impending sales of the FMC and SJ North Pedro sites will generate ~$120 million back to the RDA fund for further acquisition, especially the recent PQP moves with ATT.
Okay, I’ll be on topic on this still open thread. I will be at the meeting this Tuesday for the City Council vote on the EIR study. I’ll try to refrain from booing the two “No” votes from Ignacio De La Fuente, and the visionless Nancy Nadel, who was against the Uptown site back in 2002 and against the Fox Theater purchase and renovation by the city. She’s way more concerned about banning plastic bags and banning smoking near bus stops than trying to build up a vibrant, exciting city. Why do they keep re-electing these boobs?
@jk-usa–Please oppose the vote on spending $750K on an EIR for VC. The city council already knows the answer based on the EIR on Oak to Ninth certified January of 2010. The relevant finding is that all the intersections at the base of the northbound and southbound I-980 ramps at Jackson and Oak are at Level of Service F, the worst you can get. The City Council will learn nothing from the EIR. Caltrans and Alameda Transportation Commission do not have the funds to improve I-880. Victory Court is dead in the water.
The only viable solution is 980 Park. Yes it may take a lot of time to deal with Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration, because they are underfunded. But it is the only economically viable solution. Because the land is free, plenty of free parking, no ramp capacity limitation, community support and easy access to BART.
The City should spend half the money on a Project Study Report with Caltrans on 980 Park site. This is no race. San Jose does not have a viable site. Their site has the same freeway access constraints as Victory Court.
Wolff knows it, he is just negotiating. Don’t fall into his trap.
@ML- No worries dude. I had a feeling I was hijacking the thread! Ha!
@Bryan Grunwald- You are correct about Victory Court but you are incorrect about San Jose’s site having bad freeway access. In fact 4 major freeways pass through or near Downtown to that site (880, 87, 280, and 101).
The Sharks have shown that area can support 20k of people with very little issues regarding traffic on game days even if its during the work week.
You can easily find parking for free or cheap in a garage on weeknights before games no problem within 2 miles of the site. The only concern is when both the A’s and Sharks have games on the same nights during the work week but the Sharks got approval to build a massive parking garage behind the arena if the A’s move in to alleviate this problem.
Not to mention you will have maybe 5-10 days a year with overlap and some of those days will be on the weekend where there will not be any issues at all.
I think you need to visit the Diridon site and drive around. You will see there are 10 different ways to get to and leave from that site. The main reason is because Downtown San Jose is very centrally located freeway and road wise.
980 got shot down because of the neighborhood and the fact it would take “days” to get a permit to build on top of a freeway. There is no ancillary development there to support the new ballpark either because of the bad neighborhood nor will there ever be.
Like Ratto says in his article “Rumors during the winter meetings last week that suggested strongly that Major League Baseball (which is Bud Selig about seven owners) favors an Oakland site tend to make a fella go, “Hmmmmmmmm.”
He says it the best, there are 7 owners or so besides the SF Giants who are standing in the way of a San Jose ballpark.
The A’s are doomed to rot in the Coliseum for years to come guys. If I was LW and JF I would sit around and collect $$ just to spite the league as being a business if you can make coin then why not?
BG – Interesting assessment on VC: “Victory Court is dead in the water.” As for Diridon, Sid already cited all the freeway access as well as being the main SB transit corridors coming (BART,HSR, VTA LR, etc.).
@Bryan Grunwald: Is the surrounding area of the 980 site fit to absorb the additional traffic a ballpark would generate? With BART being a 10 min walk from the ballpark site, there’d also be additional pedestrian traffic at intersections further impeding the flow of cars.
.
Could you post more information on the 980 ballpark proposal on your website? It’d be a good resource during the discussions that spring up concerning this project. Thanks.