Oakland City Council approves EIR funding 6-2

Liveblog of the meeting (watching the stream):

7:15 PM – The first of eight speakers, Chris Dobbins, is up. The first three speakers are in favor of the resolution: Dobbins, Mike Davie, and Jorge Leon. emperor nobody is fifth with the the phrase “green stadium” as the magic words to making the ballpark work. Ethan Pintard suggests other alternative sites, is concerned with land availability. Bryan Grunwald suggests 980 Park, wants more transparency in the process.

7:28 PM – Council is speaking. Nancy Nadel asks about the Uptown garage, which will have $3.8 million in available funding, which will not be enough to finish the garage (it was also dependent on a now dormant housing development). Funny, she talks about the garage in terms of bringing people in from outside Oakland; isn’t that one of the purposes of a ballpark? Just asking.

7:33 PM – Rebecca Kaplan is up, is encouraged but wants alternatives (uses of the Victory Court site) just in case MLB doesn’t choose Oakland or a ballpark doesn’t pan out. Suggests the Coliseum as a possible site, though she takes care that mentioning the Coliseum is not opposition to Victory Court (sounds like a backpedal from the pre-election stance). Asks about pedestrian and rail crossing improvements, potential for a streetcar project.

7:36 PM – Ignacio de la Fuente thanks A’s fans. Is concerned about how MLB plays one city against another to squeeze out the best deal they can. Implores MLB to make a decision, says he can’t in good conscience support the resolution without a commitment from MLB. Brings up the DC-NoVA bidding war to land the Nats. Northern Virginia, like San Jose, was considered in the lead because it was well organized and had good political and economic support. DC got the team because of the deal put together by Robert Bobb and then-mayor Anthony Williams.

7:41 PM – Jane Brunner rebuts IDLF. Basically says that if we don’t approve this, we lose the team tomorrow (applause).

7:44 PM – Jean Quan expresses her support. Also looks at the site for other potential uses.

Motion passes 6-2. “Let’s Go Oakland” chant ensues.

Side note: A Bay City News article (via NBC Bay Area) mentions Fremont as Wolff’s fallback if MLB doesn’t allow a move to San Jose but only as a past (and currently not active) site possibility.

Greetings from the Southland again, where I am working on an ark to transport me, family, and pairs of animals away from the flash flooding here. At least it ends tomorrow. I think.

Rich Lieberman has the scoop that the A’s are dropping out of the KTRB bidding, due to the station’s “significant internal issues.” I think Big Vinny is cutting the A’s a bit too much slack here. Lew Wolff and Ken Pries are fully aware that individual stations don’t come up for sale very often, so to be able to jump in on one that already has your programming and really only needs some upkeep is a pretty rare opportunity, especially in the Bay Area. I’ve gotten on my soapbox two weeks ago, so I won’t belabor the point. Let’s just say I’ll be seriously disappointed if this comes to pass.

Speaking of opportunities, the Oakland City Council will take up the $750k EIR decision on tonight’s agenda (PDF). Be forewarned, however. The agenda has 47 items, and the meeting starts at 5:30 PM – which makes sense if you’re going to cram 47 items into a single session. The Victory Court item, 10-0260, is way down towards the bottom of the list and is a non-consent item, which means it will be heard after 6:30. A staff note for the item goes as follows:

The December 14, 2010 Community and Economic Development Committee approved recommendations and directed staff to spend conservatively – as slow as possible and decisions to expend funds should be leveraged against tangible certainties.

Staff further directed to add a RESOLVED that the contract is subject to termination at any time, with remaining funds left unspent, should the City’s work with the Major League Baseball stop progressing towards a satisfactory conclusion; 4 Ayes

Again, the item should pass handily with the added termination clause, though there will undoubtedly be a great deal of discussion before that vote is taken. The meeting will stream here.

102 thoughts on “Oakland City Council approves EIR funding 6-2

  1. Will the EIR be filed under the “Pie in the Sky Projects” section of the agenda?

  2. I’m somewhat relieved that the KTRB acquisition may fall through. I love the idea of the A’s finally having a committed radio home, but it wouldn’t be worth it if it’s just going to be a cash sink. If the A’s were already playing at Cisco Field I’d probably feel differently but things as they are, I’d feel more comfortable if they were just transplanted to an established station (AM or FM) at least until their residence is decided.

  3. @pjk–Nancy Nadel more or less said the same thing about the Fox Theater, and it’s one of the best music venues in the BA and has breathed new life into Uptown. She was also against an Uptown park for the A’s back in 2002., and we know that would of turned out so cool. So whatever she’s against, the CC should go the other way and things may work out for the better.

  4. Did Oakland need $500 million to renovate the Fox Theater? Didn’t think so.

  5. FWIW, I’d like to see the A’s move to an FM station. KFOX has been pretty good for the Sharks, but I don’t know how good the signal throughout the Bay Area.

  6. I love your website: timely, helpful, and awesome information that i literally cannot find anywhere else…keep up the great work and go a’s!

  7. Wolff is losing patience. I think if he doesn’t get San Jose the team goes up for sale.

  8. As I understand it, even beyond the transmitter, that frequency is spoken for all over the west coast. So, it would be great to have the station, it’s not very valuable for a team that wants to increase its media presence.

  9. re: Wolff is losing patience. I think if he doesn’t get San Jose the team goes up for sale.

    …And then we can find out once and for all how much interest there is in investors ponying up $1 billion ($500 mill for team, $500 mill for ballpark) to do a privately funded stadium in Oakland. We know Wolff doesn’t want to do it.

  10. @Georob–i think you’re right. He’s not getting any younger, and this whole ballpark ordeal is probably giving him sleepless nights and ulcers. Cash out (to locals who’ll stay in Oakland) with a nice profit and move on with what few years he has left.

  11. @pjk–yes we will find out, and you’ll be surprised.
    BTW, $500 mill for the A’s? Since when did their value increase 200 million overnight?

  12. Guys– why sell? You can collect $30+M in welfare payments from your other MLB brothers which allows the A’s to turn a profit, you get to signficantly influence what Oakland can do for the Raiders near term which could translate into a nice additional payoff, and than you can wait until Oakland fails to deliver again at which point MLB will have completely embarassed and still not resolved the whole ballpark issue for the A’s. LW won’t sell—-he has way more control than you think in this situation.

  13. ML, I think you’re going to have to start screening the commentary. Again.

  14. I don’t know much about running a radio station, so I have to wonder how much work is needed after purchase to make KTRB even heard after sundown. It may be more hassle than it’s seemingly worth. Buyer beware, right?

  15. so the a’s are in a state of flux all around.

    no radio station home. no new park. hell don’t even know where this team will end up 5 years from now.

    this is just getting frustrating as hell to see us a’s fans put thru this kind of garbage not only for much of the past 15 years but i would guess for the foreseeable future too.

  16. @ML: How about creating a free for all thread for jk-usa, pjk and others to just let it rip? Maybe it’ll spare a few legit comment threads from being sucked into the the usual cyclone of endlessly repeating, misguided yapping points.

  17. re:How about creating a free for all thread

    …We could call that the “colorful, provocative, interesting thread.” Would be the biggest hit on this site, no doubt.

    • I’ve been planning an open thread for the holiday week. Not before that. For the dozen or so who regularly post the same comments, it would be interesting. For me or for those who read or lurk only, it would be a bunch of drivel.

  18. as for 860? i don’t know how much it would take to get the station even remotely close to respectability in terms of the signal during the night, i know a lot of a’s fans had issues with reception at nights even before the station went down under in early september. obviously the a’s owners didn’t think it was enough.

    where do they go from here? i don’t know. how many am or even fm stations are willing to broadcast a’s games 162 times a year plus a handful of games in march for spring training along with potentially a handful of playoff games if they make it to oct.

    wherever the a’s land, pretty much forget about any sports shows following like tittle’s. that means no raiders or a’s talk during the week and we only get to talk about them after each game during the seaosn which is how it’s been since the raiders left 1050 and it’s been that way for the a’s pretty much forever up until tittle’s show arrived on the air around the fall of 09. tittle’s show was wall to wall east bay sports talk and that’ll be gone as i don’t think any station that picks up the a’s will pick up any of the sportsbyline programming that 860 has currently. you’ll still be able to listen to tittle but only online and who knows if there will be as many a’s/raiders fans calling in once his show is off air on 860 whenver that maybe.

    stinks for east bay sports fans who had hoped 860 would be finally an alternative to knbr which could care less about the a’s or raiders and their fans. but after just less than two years, it’s back to knbr monopolizing the sports talk radio market here in the bay area unless some miracle takes place and wherever the a’s land goes to an all sports format or at the very least has a couple of sports shows added to the schedule. doubtful but i can dream can’t i.

  19. Rob,
    Cisco Field won’t open until 2015; Wolff already knows this. He’ll be just fine Rob!

  20. pjk says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:48 PM pjk(Quote)
    re: Wolff is losing patience. I think if he doesn’t get San Jose the team goes up for sale.

    …And then we can find out once and for all how much interest there is in investors ponying up $1 billion ($500 mill for team, $500 mill for ballpark) to do a privately funded stadium in Oakland. We know Wolff doesn’t want to do it.

    ^^^^^^^^^

    Agreed. If they don’t get the deal done in SJ, I can definitely see Wolff selling, and we better hope the new buyers will want to keep the team in Oakland, or else they leave the Bay Area.

    Ugh

  21. as for 860? i don’t know how much it would take to get the station even remotely close to respectability in terms of the signal during the night, i know a lot of a’s fans had issues with reception at nights even before the station went down under in early september. obviously the a’s owners didn’t think it was enough.

    where do they go from here? i don’t know. how many am or even fm stations are willing to broadcast a’s games 162 times a year plus a handful of games in march for spring training along with potentially a handful of playoff games if they make it to oct.

    wherever the a’s land, pretty much forget about any sports shows following like tittle’s. that means no raiders or a’s talk during the week and we only get to talk about them after each game during the seaosn which is how it’s been since the raiders left 1050 and it’s been that way for the a’s pretty much forever up until tittle’s show arrived on the air around the fall of 09. tittle’s show was wall to wall east bay sports talk and that’ll be gone as i don’t think any station that picks up the a’s will pick up any of the sportsbyline programming that 860 has currently. you’ll still be able to listen to tittle but only online and who knows if there will be as many a’s/raiders fans calling in once his show is off air on 860 whenver that maybe.

    stinks for east bay sports fans who had hoped 860 would be finally an alternative to knbr which could care less about the a’s or raiders and their fans. but after just less than two years, it’s back to knbr monopolizing the sports talk radio market here in the bay area unless some miracle takes place and wherever the a’s land goes to an all sports format or at the very least has a couple of sports shows added to the schedule. doubtful but i can dream can’t i.

    ^^^^^^^^^^

    It’s a joke how East Bay sports talk gets no serious play….especially when the A’s are a far better overall franchise than the Giants.

    The A’s should buy 860…..it would be a stupid move not to actually. They can get it at a bargain basement price.

  22. Any chance the A’s could cut a deal onto 1050? I know KNBR is partially owned by the Giants, but it makes a lot of business sense. Hell LW could allow broadcasting rights to A’s in the near interim (5 years) + $$ for the TR! ;)

    • Any chance the A’s could cut a deal onto 1050? I know KNBR is partially owned by the Giants, but it makes a lot of business sense. Hell LW could allow broadcasting rights to A’s in the near interim (5 years) + $$ for the TR!

      I like this idea ST! Kind of Expos/Nationals/Orioles-ish in nature…why not!

  23. I absolutely loved this season on the radio. 860, is the voice for the A’s and the Raider Nation. It would make sense for both the A’s and Raiders, to own this station. I wonder if anyone has talked to Al about buying? Could the A’s and Raiders work together? Sharks?

  24. sharks have been on the same FM rock radio station since their first game and i doubt it’ll change as the station they’re on is one of the most popular stations in the south bay and the ratings for sharks games may not be great, it’s still nice to have the power of a great station behind you. something the a’s haven’t had in decades.

    as for the a’s and raiders. always wondered why both of the orgs couldn’t work something out in the past and buy their own single radio station and have it be an alternative to knbr. raiders themselves have been on three radio stations in the past what 6-7 years? yes w’s are on knbr and are an OAKLAND team for now but i’d guess wthin the next decade they’ll be in sf. to have an actual radio home for your fans i think would be something to you as a sports franchise would want.

    thought 860 would be that east bay sports radio station but looks as that’s going to go bye bye soon if this news is true that the a’s are out of the bidding to buy the station. it’s unbelievable that a sports city like oakland which has an nfl and mlb team where they don’t have a radio outlet for their fans to talk seriously about the team. i can’t think of any other mlb or nfl team is in the same situation as the a’s/raiders and yes i’m not counting knbr and their bias which is clearly shown and heard now more so than ever as a place where we east bay sports fans are welcomed or taken seriously.

    just another slap in the face for east bay sports fans.

  25. Regarding the public comments urging alternative sites be considered (980 ballpark) and included as part of this study — I don’t understand how that could fit withing the scope of this EIR, which by it’s nature is VC site specific. Since, as Kaplan referenced, the EIR launches a process of further public input, at some point does someone have to say that the subject at hand is VC, future ballpark or its alternatives, and commenting about the Coli site or 980 airspace is irrelevant to the analysis of VC development?

    • @Sully – Besides the idea that the EIR is rigged for Victory Court, I’m sure that there is a cost component associated with leaving out one or more alternate sites, since those would have to be studied to a comparable level as VC. If there were no cap they could consider multiple sites without too much worry.

  26. Don’t think you can compare SJ to NoVA and paint Oakland as being DC. Major, I mean MAJOR, apples and oranges. Nice try IDLF!

  27. The city should think about sites that have existing EIR’s on them. Yes alternative sites would have to modify their existing EIRs but at least it could limit the cost of fully preparing a new EIR.

  28. @ML — I see. Cost component, but also a time component too, right? It seems MLB has staked Oakland one last hand and dealt Victory Court, Try and beat the house with it. I don’t see why they would or should afford Oakland much more than that.

  29. @Tony – I made the comparison, not IDLF.

    @Sully – That’s it. I remember making a comparison to playing an inside straight in poker once. That’s what this is.

  30. Marine Layer kind of said this was an open forum page. Well he did say open forum for holiday week. I will take the opportunity now. Anyway I am sure many of you are baseball fans that frequent this site. Well the East Bay is likely to lose a baseball team before the A’s. The Cal baseball program will be dropped if it does not raise suffiecient funds before January 1. So go ahead and make a pledge on their website. Remember the pledge donor you will only be financially obligated when Cal Baseball is reinstated. Anything and everything helps. So see link.

    http://www.savecalbaseball.com

  31. Interesting that A’s have now made public a desire for Fremont to be the fallback. So even if VC miraculously gets the $500 million in public funding it needs they’re only the 3rd option.

  32. @Dan. I don’t think there’s any new interest in Fremont, the BCN story just mentions that the team “has considered” it.

  33. @ML, I still don’t get what MLB has to gain by taking the route they have. If MLB prefers that the A’s stay in Oakland, why not come out and say so? What is there to be gained by remaining silent? It’s not like Wolff is playing Oakland and San Jose against each other to get a better deal. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

  34. actually I think that Fremont will be/is back on table—planning around Tesla site was just initiated the other day. VC will never happen unless Oakland gift wraps a ballpark with 0 contribution from the A’s. BS has over engineered this chess game with A’s fans as pawns. EIR completed/certified in late 2012—in the mean time nothing will happen—and ML’s counter will only continue to tick—

  35. @GoA’s– if I recall correctly, Tesla bought the NUMMI plant which takes up many, many acres. That pretty much killed Fremont’s chances, as it was the only proposed site at the time; all others fell through as a result of NIMBYism and other types of opposition. Where in Fremont where it work without opposition, be close to BART and/or AMTRAK, have easy access via the freeways, and have two major housing developments nearby? Oakland has Oak to 9th, which hopefully gets built in this decade, as well as Jack London District. Despite Oakland’s obstacles to negotiate with businesses and hopefully avoid eminent domain (who knows), Fremont’s chances seem alot slimmer. I think the whole Fremont “revisit” plan is just one of Wolff’s new slaps in Oakland’s face– anywhere, but Oakland type of thing by him.

  36. RM, I’m sorry if my remark about Wolff(actually, Fisher) selling the team got the discussion off track. But like you, I’m baffled as to why buying KTRB, even with it’s problems; isn’t a “no-brainer”. The best reason I can think of is that Wolff is not convinced at this time that he’s going to get his new stadium and that all the noise in Oakland points to the possibility that Selig can’t close the deal in San Jose.

  37. Rob,
    You’ve become the master of connecting dots that shouldn’t/don’t need to be connected.
    Not over bidding on a radio station with a myriad of issues is the “no brainer,” but just love how it always comes back to the “MLB favors the Giants over the A’s” thought with you. Oh well, you’re entitled to your opinion.
    My “opinion” is that with this 6-2 Oakland vote on the EIR, that’s the last we’ll hear out of The O! on all this.
    If this is the last thread through Friday…Merry Christmas all!

  38. Oops! Forgot to ask Rob…what “noise” in Oakland?

  39. @TonyD–there sure was a lot of “noise” last night in the O, it was great. Awesome group of fans, coming together for a cause. MLB is looking at all this and will make their announcement in a few months and you’ll be hearing a lot more from the O.

  40. If a deal had been reached over TR’s don’t you think Mark Purdy or someone would have “Wikileaked” this out by now, especally since SJ is waiting to put this on the ballot? The emperor has no clothes and Selig has no deal.

    BTW, what’s with all the layoffs at the Merc? It be sweet irony if Purdy wound up at the Chronicle. Think his stance might change just a bit?

  41. The Chronicle has had enough layoffs of their own.

  42. Maybe ML can hire Purdy for this blog! Didn’t Yahoo just layoff 600 or 700 folks recently? No chance to take one of those guys’ job …

  43. It would be sweet if this whole back and forth could end and Selig could come out and chat already.

  44. agree Jeffrey but don’t expect that it will happen–A’s could always build in Oakland….doesn’t take a blessing from MLB for this to happen…but it does take a willing owner and we all know that LW has already said and repeated recently that he will not build in Oakland. BS would look foolish saying anything at this time other than the A’s can or cannot build in SJ. Even that won’t satisfy the Oakland folks because it isn’t about to endorse Oakland only to have one of his owners re-iterate that he won’t build there. The quandry that he needs to deal with now is the expiration of the lease in the coli in 2013—A’s indicate that they will stay in the Coli….and the city of Oakland wants them out for the Raiders—-a city who claims they want to keep the team and now is threating to kick them out unless the A’s build a new ballpark in Oakland…ahhhhh–quite a mess BS has got himself into—as well as the city of Oakland who took how many years to make the $750k investment in an EIR–wait until they need to pull the trigger on $500M–

  45. re: wait until they need to pull the trigger on $500M–

    Oakland expects a privately funded ballpark. It doesn’t seem fair that rich, well-to-do Frisco gets a free ballpark while struggling, down-on-its-luck Oakland will have to pay big public $$ if it wants to keep major league baseball, but that’s the way it is.

  46. Re. radio: Any A’s-centric radio station would have to be one that can be heard anywhere within 200 miles of home plate. When I lived in Calaveras County only KNBR, KTCT, KFRC, KGO and KCBS were the only Bay Area stations that came in. A station with that kind of transmission power will cost more than $12 million.

    Re: IDLF’s nay vote: Wolff/Fisher may gain nothing by playing the two cities against each other, but MLB could. As somebody pointed out on Athletics Nation, a new stadium benefits the whole baseball cartel, not just the A’s ownership. Why wouldn’t MLB just sit back and let the two cities up the ante until they get the best possible deal? They certainly aren’t worried about bad publicity. Aside from money, what’s the difference between what MLB is doing and what Scott Boras is doing with/to the A’s and Angels on behalf of Adrian Beltre?

  47. So if Oakland has no ballpark deal and wants the A’s out in 2013, and San Jose remains banned from pursuing MLB, where does the team play in 2014? Since it’s the Giants causing this whole problem we can’t count on them playing in Frisco. Maybe MLB will have to suspend franchise operations for several years

  48. I’m curious, who all have met up at games here? I’d kinda like to see a Tony D. sharing nachos with jk-usa.

  49. I have met a few folks from this board and AN at games.

  50. pjk, why not? The majority of cities have paid something toward the construction of their ballparks. San Francisco was an exception not the rule and it took the team having an agreement to move to St. Pete and a miracle investor group before SF got their 95% private ballpark. Oakland needs to come up with the miracle investor group if they want to build a private park, otherwise they should expect to pay a sizable portion of the construction costs like everyone else.

  51. Does the crazy spill over into real life?

  52. re:pjk, why not?

    I’m not saying Oakland shouldn’t pay. I’m just saying from what i’ve read, Oakland expects the A’s to pick up the tab for the ballpark and I say, good luck with that one.

  53. I don’t think that the phrase “as slow as possible” appearing anywhere in connection with VC ballpark process is going to impress anyone at MLB.

  54. What’s up with that Bay City News item, implying that Lew is looking at Fremont again if MLB cockblocks him from San Jose? I presume that’s just sloppy writing/editing, and is referring to the past-tense Fremont plan …

  55. It appears that Oakland’s doing an EIR in expectation of the A’s paying for the ballpark would be akin to my paving my driveway in expectation that someone will drop off for me, free and clear, a brand new Mercedes Benz.. I’ll pave the driveway for several hundred dollars – now you bring me the $50,000 automobile. I’ve done my part. I’m entitled. The guy down the street got a new Mercedes given to him, now I expect one too.

  56. @monkeyball–planning for land around Tesla has just begun for Fremont and they of course are looking at mixed use so a ballpark fits that. Not to start a flame war but how many times does LW have to say that he won’t build in Oakland—as recently as when the bogus story came out that the BRC was getting ready to recommend Oakland. The only thing the BRC can do is tell him SJ is off-limtis–where he builds in his own assigned territory will be up to him and absent Oakland handing him a ballpark for free than Fremont would definetely be back on the table-

  57. Wasn’t the BRC supposed to look for ballpark possibilities in the A’s existing “territory?” Consideration of San Jose was never part of the original charter. (I doubt the A’s will want to re-agitate the NIMBYs in Fremont.)

  58. @pjk- The “nimby” in the current site was NUMMI—they are no longer there and Tesla said they would welcome a ballpark—

  59. The folks I have met are very nice people with a variety of opinions. I consider some to be friends at this point.

  60. I believe the so-called Fremont Citizens Network, just over the hill from NUMMI, will be just as irate about an A’s ballpark at the NUMMI site, arguing against all evidence that ballparks bring nothing but “crime and chaos” to a community.

  61. @pjk—I wouldn’t assume that–the one site that was very close to their neighborhood across from 680 stirred those emotions—this is the 880 side and I doubt it will have the same intensity—

  62. GoAs – It seems apparent that the Fremont Citizens Network (FCN) is going to fight any and all attempts by the A’s to move anywhere within city limits. It remains to be seen if enough Fremonters would rise up in support of the A’s, to counter FCN. I did see one commenter on the FCN site sarcastically congratulating FCN for keeping jobs and revenue out of Fremont.

  63. FWIW I contacted Matt Artz from the TriCityBeat a few weeks back about the A’s possibly looking back at Fremont and he told me he hadn’t heard anything.

  64. Did I mention Cisco Field isn’t scheduled to open until 2015? Not 2012, not 2013. Inhale deeply, breath out slowly and relax A’s fans; our “World Series celebration” will be coming soon enough! Again, Merry Christmas all!

  65. With all its competetive advantages this should have been wrapped up for San Jose months ago, if not years ago. I’m telling you, Selig doesn’t have enough owners behind him on this one.

  66. @GoA’s — I have not heard or read Lew Wolff ever say he “won’t build in Oakland.” He has stated repeatedly that he looked into every Oakland site and does not believe it’s possible to build anywhere in Oakland. From AN interview 11/9/10, LW: “Look, I’m happy to build a ballpark anywhere I can get one but there is much more to doing so than just drawing a line around a few city blocks.” That’s what he thinks VC is, “lines” (and maybe he’s right..) However, if Oakland can substantially prove otherwise…

  67. Fremont is dead in the water because Lew Wolff cannot build it 100% privately there without a public subsidy for the ballpark and/or transportation issues….similar to Oakland.

    Add this on top of the fact the Tesla plant has zero ancillary development around it so therefore Lew Wolff would have to build that in order to pay for the ballpark and support it long term. His plan in Oakland and Fremont to use Residential Entitlements from ancillary development to privately pay for the ballpark.

    He was trying to create a “Mini-Downtown” in Fremont to offset the lack ancillary development on any of the sites he was looking at. (Warm Springs, Tesla, and Pacific Commons). What happened? The “Great Recession” killed the housing market and his plan. He spent $80 million on land in Fremont with 30M not recoverable. The rest of the land he may still sell or develop later when the economy turns around.

    If LW could still build in Fremont he would now and not wait for MLB as that is proving to be futile at this point. Oakland is trying to merely stay afloat in the process as much as they can but deep down they know it will cost $$ just to subsidize the transportation issues around Victory Court….Nevermind the ballpark itself and buying out all the businesses.

    Bud Selig screwed up and thought the 75% vote was slam dunk and he is close enough to not announce San Jose is off limits at this point.

    When the A’s lease expires in 2013 and there is no ballpark in sight for years to come MLB will either force Oakland to extend the lease, contract the A’s, or move them to another city (San Antonio) where they can play temporarily until a new place is made (Washington is a perfect example of this)

    The Giants have won guys…..Their selfishness is appalling.

  68. @Georob- Agreed 100%, San Jose is such a better option the fact MLB has not moved forward there tells you BS doesn’t have 75%. He is close though or he would have announced San Jose dead in the water….He is still working on it.

  69. @Sully- LW was quoted just over 2 weeks ago when the rumor was that the BRC had decided in favor of Oakland– his response—and I am paraphrasing—they can tell me where I can’t build…they can’t tell me where I have to build…We have exhausted all options in Oakland–I would go further to say that even if Oakland built the entire ballpark with public money am not so sure that this would satisfy him? Pittsburgh taxpayers built one for the Pirates–one of the best new ballparks…and they are still the lowest valued franchise in MLB—just below Oakland which is number 29–

  70. I’ll give you this Rob; Maybe Selig doesn’t have the vote BECAUSE San Jose isn’t quite ready yet; remaining land acquisitions, RDA land sales, quid pro quo, Airport West deal.
    You’ll see things really start to move when SJ has ALL its ducks in a row, not just some or most. Coming soon all!

  71. @MLB will either force Oakland to extend the lease, contract the A’s, or move them to another city:
    Trouble is, now that Portland has turned PGE Park into a soccer field, there are no MLB ready parks, even for temporary use (as PGE could have been) anywhere. What happens if they can’t move to SJ, VC doesn’t work out, and the Coliseum lease expires?

  72. If they can’t move to another city, are banned from San Jose and can’t play in Oakland anymore, the options are: share ATT Park with Frisco (yea, right), contract the franchise or suspend operations indefinitely.

  73. Contraction and suspension would require another team also be contracted or suspended. I fear the first option: playing in SF as a ward of MLB while awaiting relocation to another place.

  74. @Tony- San Jose has an EIR and most the land ready. They just struck a deal with ATT and need to move a welding station and the land is theirs 100%.

    Oakland isn’t even close, they have 16 businesses to buy and move plus the EIR.

    San Jose has SVLG supporting them as well and Oakland does not.

    It is not even close between the two cities, the land acquisition is such a small part of the entire process and they are so far ahead of Oakland in that regard it is mind boggling why Selig won’t announce that the A’s are allowed to “explore” a Silicon Valley ballpark?

    It is simple and sad….he thought getting 75% vote would be easy like what Steve Schott did years ago but MLB had too many ownership changes since and the Giants have played their politics internally to perfection.

    BS is still trying for his old friend LW or he would have announced San Jose is off limits like he did to Schott years ago.

    @mainea’sguy- San Antonio has the Alamodome and have been known to shell out public money for sports teams. The Florida Marlins nearly had a deal in place to move there 2 years ago but Miami stepped up and paid for a new place for them. MLB will not suspend operations but either contract or buy the team from LW and move it like they did for the Expos.

    Washington played in RFK for a few years before their new place was built….San Antonio is the only logical place and they have shown interest in MLB in the past few years.

  75. @GoA’s — I did see that, and there is clearly some agitation in those “can’t tell me where to build” words, but it is in LW’s best interest to stick to the “all avenues exhausted in Oakland” as long as SJ remains a possibility. The question is, what would he say if the door was closed on SJ? Odds are we will never know, because Oakland will likely falter at some point in this VC ballpark process, and that will be enough evidence for Selig to take the TR vote to owners. I’m personally intrigued by the notion of Oakland succeeding where everyone assumes they will fail. That success could also come in allowing the A’s to leave if the deal is not right.

  76. @Go A’s- If Oakland builds a 100% publicly financed ballpark for the A’s even Lew Wolff would be idiotic not to do it.

    But he knows that is not happening because Oakland feels they “deserve” a privately financed ballpark like SF.

    @Sully- Selig has a “count” by now of which owners are voting for San Jose and which are not. The tally doesn’t add up to move to San Jose hence the logical delay. BS is close though or he would have announced San Jose is dead.

  77. @Sid- What gives you the belief? I can’t see why Selig or any of the owners outside of Giants would be interested in voting on, or making any decisions on the matter until all options in the A’s current territory are fully explored as determined by this committee that was appointed. If this is more than speculation on your part, please cite.

    The delay speaks more to Oakland’s work of late. As Brunner said at the council meeting “The committee came thinking the would only be here for two weeks. We’ve impressed them.”

  78. ML: thank you for reporting this — fortunately you did not need to leave the sanctity of your ark as it was streamed — the Mercury News has not (at least I could not find it).

  79. I think the NBC Bay Area story means just what it says — Wolff has considered Fremont — in the past, and the implication that he’s considering it now is not what the writer intended. But I know the writer, so just emailed him to clarify.

  80. erw, I signed up for daily spam from the Chronicle and Mercury. The Mercury email this morning included a link this story. Not sure if it is in the print edition, because I don’t read print editions of anything these days.

  81. Tony, if I’m an MLB owner and feel that the San Jose deal is a good one for MLB, then why am I waiting for every single detail to be worked out before giving the commissioner my support? The sooner we have closure, the better it is for everyone, including the City of Oakland and the Giants.

    • Tony, if I’m an MLB owner and feel that the San Jose deal is a good one for MLB, then why am I waiting for every single detail to be worked out before giving the commissioner my support? The sooner we have closure, the better it is for everyone, including the City of Oakland and the Giants.

      Rob,
      You know the history of ballpark proposals in the Bay Area (R.M. has gone over it ad nauseum)…with the exception of privately-financed AT&T Park, FAILURE! MLB want’s to ensure that when they vote on an A’s move to San Jose that a ballpark will happen %100 for sure. And again, I challenge anyone, Wolff has stated that a ballpark/Cisco Field will open in 2015, which is over four years away…why the urgency to hear something NOW? Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to hear from the “BRC” yesterday, but come on and be real! Patience is a virtue my friend from Corpus!

  82. Tony, if I’m an MLB owner and feel that the San Jose deal is a good one for MLB, then why am I waiting for every single detail to be worked out before giving the commissioner my support? If San Jose is 90% there, I’m convinced that this will happen and that the sooner we have closure, the better it is for everyone, including the City of Oakland and the Giants. Conversely, if I have serious issues with this, then San Jose going from 90% to 100% may not be enough.

    It’s been 2 years now since the Fremont stadium plan died and we’re still waiting on territorial rights? Doesn’t make sense, my friend!

  83. I must have accidentally posted my unfinished remark and then you responded before I completed it. I also think that the economy is slowing down MLB’s decision and as a result, they’re in no hurry to settle this. Wolff, on the other hand; may end up deciding he’s waited long enough. Then what happens?

    • I must have accidentally posted my unfinished remark and then you responded before I completed it. I also think that the economy is slowing down MLB’s decision and as a result, they’re in no hurry to settle this. Wolff, on the other hand; may end up deciding he’s waited long enough. Then what happens?

      I’ll give you that to Rob! That the economy has slowed things down a bit. Hence the 2015 opening date for Cisco Field and pushing the whole Airport West/Earthquakes SSS out past 2015. Heck, maybe MLB/Selig want even Wolff to have all his ducks (i.e. financing) in a row before approving a move to San Jose. I can hear Selig now, “Don’t put to much on your plate right now Lewie and push back the soccer stuff past 2015.”

  84. San Jose could be dead. And there is no reason for Bud to speak of it because that would limit MLB’s ability to leverage Oakland.

    What I don’t understand, I mean if it’s just as simple as getting the rest of the owners on board with San Jose, why would any teams oppose the move to San Jose. You know, besides the Giants?

    To those who think publically funded ballpark construction in San Jose or any City in California is a reasonable prospect I have to ask you, where are you getting this idea? Bell? It’s one thing for a municipality to spend RDA money on property acquisition and infrastructure. But building? Well it ain’t even the same game.

  85. Mike Anderson of NBCBayArea.com confirms he only meant Wolff had considered Fremont in the past — he has no information on anything current or future. He rewrote the paragraph so it now reads:

    There have been rumors that MLB will make the A’s stay put, but A’s owner Lew Wolff has also considered building the new stadium in San Jose. Fremont used to be an option but it didn’t work out.

  86. Thanks for getting the clarification, Nina. Post edited accordingly.

  87. @Sid. The Giants haven’t won. Predicting the endgame is very difficult in the omega case, in which Oakland falls through, San Jose acquires the land and Selig can’t get the votes to approve a move. Then it becomes the power of San Jose and SVLG against that of the Giants. At that point, words like “lawsuit” and “boycott” come into play and it becomes a naked power struggle. MLB would be foolish to let it get there.

  88. “Why would any teams oppose the move to San Jose. You know, besides the Giants?”

    The New York and LA teams not wanting to establish a precedent that could result in a 3rd team moving into their territory. Possibly the Chicago teams as well for the same reasons or the Mariners/Rangers to keep the A’s down. Either way SF, NY, NY, LA, LA, Chi/Sea, Chi/Tex is seven which is enough to not allow the transfer of territorial rights.

    Walter Haas did a lot of great things for the A’s but giving the Giants Santa Clara County instead of booting them out the door to St. Pete may result in the death of the franchise.

  89. @Nathan. The Mariners and Rangers interest is to get the A’s a new stadium, they get the visitor share of receipts for nine games a year….the same way Peter O’Malley of the Dodgers led the fight that blocked the sale of the Giants to Tampa/St. Pete interests. I think that would go for the Angels as well, they don’t want to lose their main historic rival…. The White Sox will probably vote with Selig, the owners are close. The Cubs are flaky and could vote anything. The Yankees and Mets would probably be the main opponents.

  90. RE: Contraction

    First off, we’re talking hypothetically—in the same way an asteroid could theoretically smack into the Earth and decimate nearly all life on the planet. Secondly, there’s always the Giants for your baseball fix (kidding).

    .

    RE: Other MLB teams’ stake

    Winning and championships are nice, but I really feel that each organization’s chief goal is to sustain a profitable franchise in their given market. MLB provides a product, and that product isn’t World Series Championships. MLB is selling us the baseball experience. They tout their own history and legacy. Selig’s office has sought to put a new ballpark in every city to enhance the baseball experience, not make every team a champion (which is logistically impossible anyway). I’m not saying this is a bad thing and I don’t want to come off cynical. I like the baseball experience. I’m willing to fork out money for tickets and the occasional jersey/cap/shirt.

    .

    I highly doubt the Mariners, Rangers or Angels want to see the A’s fail. Each of those teams are selling the baseball experience to their fans and whether the A’s draw 15k or 35k per night, it doesn’t greatly impact their operations. Theoretically, a new ballpark will put the A’s in a better position to win championships but that doesn’t necessarily correlate to any other AL West team seeing a massive dip in revenue.

  91. @Sully- LW’s 227 pages of notes show that Oakland is not viable at all nor is any other East Bay site. What makes anyone think it would take 650 days or so to determine his information is right or wrong? That is just retarded.

    It is obvious they are stalling and it is because of BS’ lack of votes from the other owners. Oakland has nothing in comparison as a city or even a ballpark proposal compared to San Jose.

    All the Giants need is 7 other owners with themselves to stop this. NYY, NYM, LAD, LAA, CHC, CHW, will vote against it to save themselves from a 3rd team coming into their market. Texas and Seattle don’t want to see the A’s get a new place in San Jose and fiscally be able to compete for obvious reasons.

    @baycommuter- It is over, BS is praying for a Oakland “miracle” so he can wash himself of this mess.

    He thought getting 75% vote would be easy as disparities between San Jose and Oakland are so amazing to the naked eye he thought the other owners would see this.

    The Giants are telling these other owners that if the A’s are allowed to “infringe” on their T-Rights what is to stop the next team from doing to them? They put fear into these teams and Texas/Seattle don’t want to see the A’s succeed as they are in the same division.

    San Jose has its “ducks in a row” and has them like this for a while. Oakland is just starting an EIR that is long overdue on a site that is not feasible when you dig into it.

    Plus the fact BS never puts anything to a vote unless it is predetermined the outcome. In this case if San Jose cannot be done why announce anything?

    May as well wait and see if Oakland “hangs themselves” with a large public subsidy…

  92. @Sid–“Oakland has nothing in comparison as a city or even a ballpark proposal compared to San Jose.” Huh?
    Boy, you need to get up north a little more often.

  93. @jk-usa- I work in the East Bay at Tech company (go figure) but live in the South Bay because it is a whole lot nicer.

    The comparison:

    San Jose
    Low crime rate (4th safest large city in the nation)
    Large corporate support
    1 million in population (Was 300k in 1968)
    Highest per capita in nation over 500k people
    Downtown site ready to go (welding station needs to be moved)
    Easy freeway access
    Future home of HSR, BART, and has Caltrain/Light Rail at Diridon

    Oakland:
    High crime rate (one of the highest in the nation for a city over 400k in population)
    Minimal corporate support (Safeway and Clorox have left already)
    400k in population (was 320k in 1968)
    Low per capita
    Bad site with 16 businesses that need to be moved
    Bad freeway access
    6 blocks away from the BART minimally in a bad neighborhood.

    I think it is you who needs to come south more often. Oakland is not a place where families or smart people with $$ go to “hang out”.

    I hate to break it to ya but San Jose is the largest city in the Bay while Oakland is the “ugly stepchild” now.

    You question this? REALLY?

  94. Forgot to mention that San Jose has an EIR ready to go too while Oakland who has dissed the A’s organization over the years is just starting one.

    When the A’s leave Oakland you will “wish” they moved to San Jose

  95. That’s all for this thread.

Comments are closed.