What’s next for Oakland?
- 12.22.10, 16:38
- 71 Comments
Now that funding for the Victory Court EIR has been approved, what will the next year-plus look like? How does the process work, and what could speed up or slow it down?
I posted a possible timeline for the EIR work at AN. Here’s the entire comment:
2011
Jan-Mar: Draft EIR prepared
Apr: Notice of availability, distribution of Draft EIR
Apr-May: 45-60 day comment period
Jun-Nov: Final EIR prep2012
Dec: Final EIR notice of availability and distribution
Dec-Feb: Final EIR comment period (30-60 days)
Mar: EIR Certification, 30-day period to allow for challengesThat leaves anywhere from 12-18 months to do land acquisition, depending on if/when MLB gives the green light. That could be the biggest problem, since there’s little chance that Oakland will start negotiations or property takings if MLB doesn’t commit to Oakland. The later it starts, the worse it gets. Construction should start in a 6 month window between November 2012 and April 2013 if all parties want to make Opening Day 2015. Also, this schedule is based on everything going smoothly. For big projects in Oakland, often someone mounts a legal challenge that inevitably delays the process.
The final EIR prep may be shorter or longer because it is largely a response to new information requests and comments by various public agencies and private parties. There’s also the possibility that some of the methodology may be questioned, which could cause some portion of the EIR to be redrafted.
CEQA‘s flowchart shows more detail:
CEQA usually calls for a feasibility study to scope out the cost of mitigation for the project. That’s the last step before the City approves the project, and the cost of mitigation tends to vary greatly depending on what’s involved. This is often a point where lawsuits come in, because certain parties may not feel that mitigation measures are comprehensive enough or even completely lacking.
MLB could make this much easier on Oakland by making a decision in the City’s favor sometime in the next few months. Then Oakland could start the land acquisition process, though that would be with the idea that they’d have an uncooperative ownership group for whom they’d be buying the land. A long period for land acquisition helped San Jose in the long run, as SJRA benefited from dropping property values over the last three years.
Oakland and its boosters would also have to get MLB to commit to bringing in a more Oakland-friendly group, a task which will range somewhere between difficult and impossible. Looking for Larry Ellison? Don’t bother, since he and his buddies will be investing $150 million either in San Francisco or Newport, RI over the next 2-3 years. At this point, I think it’d be more likely that MLB buys the A’s as they did the Expos and as the NBA is buying the New Orleans Hornets. If MLB can’t find a suitable buyer or Oakland drops the ball, then well, I really don’t want to go there.
I think the real problem is some people putting personal slants on everything; making issues of policies & procedures into issues of right & wrong/just & unjust. They sensationalize and run with wild assumption that spark back n’ forth yapping about essentially nothing. At that point, it’s not discussing the news. Instead, it’s a few grown men yammering on about not getting what they want when they want it and/or who deserves this or that.
@Nathan – Yes, the financial picture has changed that much. MLB has roughly double the revenue in 2010 that it got in 2002, and it has a revenue sharing plan in place, something that wasn’t there when the 2002 CBA negotiations came around.
@ML–@ML- based upon what I know about revenue sharing 31% of the local revenues are thrown into a kitty with the total than averaged over 30 teams—based upon this average a team either receives or contributes to revenue sharing (about $5.8B in local revenues)–a second component is the leagues distribution of money it takes it from a corporate perspective. Using local revenues only there are only 8 teams that contribute to revenue sharing with the Yankees being the largest and the gints the smallest at just over $1M on $200M of local revenues. There are 22 teams that benefit from this with the A’s in the top 3 based upon $155M of local revenues. Eliminating the revenue for the A’s and Rays and using the same formula you now have 14 of the teams paying into the kitty with the Tigers at $188M of local revenues being the last.
But I will accept your premise that $60M on $6B of revenues isn’t worth the headache of making it happen—-and recognizing that the difference in local revenues between the gints and A’s is less than $50M than with this type of attitude it explains how the owners could probably care less about the A’s moving to San Jose and generating an addional $30M of revenue—in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t move the dial enough and therefore easier to accept that regardless the A’s will be on the dole with or without a new ballpark in Oakland
While it might be small dollars in the general scheme of things ($60M on $6B) it is still real dollars that impact the total number of welfare recipients and puts near 50% of the teams in the black based upon local revenues. But lets take your assumption that MLB and especially the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets are just fine with the current system and don’t care about changing things—-than that is probably why the A’s cant get the necessary support to move to SJ—
David,
I was ready to blow you up with a mean response to your last post, but DA RAIDERS shout out at the end saved ya ;o)
Merry Christmas bra!
Tony’s position is grounded in three words: “San Jose Athletics” And whatever plan, proposal, strategy, or point of view that ultimately leads to that name is what we’ll see advocated by him. Like I said last week, Lew Wolff could kill most of the traffic on this blog by announcing tomorrow that the team will be the “Golden State Athletics” no matter where they play.
@GoA’s – The big market teams don’t like the luxury tax or revenue sharing. But they also aren’t so against those things that they would lobby for a salary floor, which could create as much if not more competitive balance as a salary cap. So for them, the status quo works. That has little to do with the A’s specific circumstances vis-a-vis moving.
@Georob–with LW’s infatuation with SJ, I’m surprise he hasn’t changed the name to SJ A’s while still playing in Oakland. He wanted San Jose or Silicon Valley in the name in the Fremont plan.
Taking a step back from how the overall revenue pie is divided up, it helps to remember why the pie is the size it is. Having a MLB franchise represented in all major US markets maintains high brand recognition coast to coast. Financial mechanisms like salary floors or revenue sharing, though different, are striving for the same thing– improving the financial stability of individual franchises without sacrificing the overall success of the overall industry.
.
It’s safe to assume Lew Wolff and Co. are aware of this. You don’t purchase a Starbucks in Gilroy in hopes of matching the revenue of a Starbucks in Time Square. Wolff has said he’s currently all-in on San Jose but that’s based on the current set of circumstances. If MLB rules in favor of Oakland then Oakland and the A’s agree to terms on funding, I wouldn’t see why Wolff/Fisher would sell. I always felt that they would sell once a new ballpark was open regardless of where it is in the Bay Area. In regards to financial operations and the A’s future residence, it’d be absurd to think that MLB would make a ruling that puts the A’s in a vulnerable position.
@Briggs–i agree Wolff would sell a few years after a SJ park is built, to get maximum profit while things are still looking good before the novelty of the park wears off.. But disagree with you on saying he wouldn’t sell if Oakland gets the nod. He really doesn’t want to be in that town and said he’s done looking for a site. They’ll sell to locals and move on, with a much bigger profit in 5 years ownership than the previous 3 ownerships combined. That’s the sick part: they don’t do much in their 5 years but bitch and complain, keep profits from the revenue sharing and cash out with 140 mill more in profit.
@ML–one comment you made that I don’t agree with is that if the A’s were to leave town than the gints would see little bump in revenue—if this is accurate why would they be so opposed to the A’s moving to SJ where MLB guarantees a certain level of revenue for them? From my perspective a single team in the bay area would definetely have increased revenues–otherwise to be so adamant in their stance makes no sense
@GoA’s – I should have rephrased that. In the near term, the Giants wouldn’t see a major bump. Once they got new media deals in place – deals that wouldn’t come for a few years at least – then they’d see the benefit. The big win for them would be franchise value, which would catapult to near where the Red Sox are now.
So exactly how does MLB calculate franchise value? Do they take into account the demographics of a teams’ “territories”? If so, maybe that’s a big reason the Giants are reluctant to give up(or share) Santa Clara County. Perhaps they don’t care as much about loss of potential revenues as much as they do franchise value.
@ML–according to Forbes 2010 figs, the G’s value is at 483 mill and the RedSox at 870 mill. That’s quite a jump from 9th to 2nd place. The Philly’s, in a similar size single team market (if the A’s are gone, and I highly doubt that), are at 537 mill and get huge TV ratings. I can see the G’s maybe at 600 mill, but over 800 mill? Wow!
@jk-usa – The Red Sox valuation includes Fenway Park, the valuable land underneath it, and an 80% stake in NESN. The Giants don’t own the land under AT&T Park and have only a 30% share of CSNBA. The Giants can’t get to $800 million in the next decade, but $600-700 million may be possible.
Oakland is just staying afloat in the process and praying for a billionaire to come in and save them. Their EIR is well over due but I always say “better late than never”, so it is a positive sign for them to actually pick a site and stick to it.
It is too bad Wally Haas was a “nice guy” and a poor business man. I do realize by letting the Giants look at the San Jose in the early 1990s he thought he could get San Francisco but in reality he was foolish to think that. The Giants if they moved to San Jose back then would have pocketed SF as well leaving the A’s in the same quandary they are in now.
BS should have listened to Steve Schott years ago and took this issue to a vote when Schott was able to corner it.
Regardless of the CBA, I have to agree with ML that MLB makes $$ regardless of the A’s being in existence or not. Therefore the lack of owners votes to move to the team to San Jose is the only logical explanation. This makes contraction not possible and MLB would buy and relocate the team as its last option. Contraction requires all the other owners to pay off the owner of the contracted team at once.
The A’s need a new place to play and BS stalls because of his own idiocy and MLB’s wrongful Anti-Trust exemption.
I am Pro-SJ but even I am praying for a “Oakland miracle” at this point.
@Sid–you may rip the memory of Walter Haas all you want about being such a poor business man, but there’s one thing he was and that Wolff will never be is a winner, as in a World Series winner. On top of that, he was a class act, that employees, players, the press and fans respected immensely.
Walter Haas treated his employees like family when he owned the A’s. In 1989, A’s employees returned the favor by presenting Mr. Haas with a plaque, and each employee dedicated many hours of community service in honor of him. Can you see the same thing happening with Wolff? I don’t think so.
@jk-usa – Wally Haas is not coming back. Deal with it.
@jk-usa- Wally Haas may have been a “great man” and he may have been “respected” but he was a poor businessman and that is why A’s are where they are today…Small market and stuck in a football stadium.
You need to realize that this is a “business” and all that sentimental stuff you talk about means “zero” in today’s world…ask the Giants across the Bay.
Wolff nor any other owner (Except for Mike Ilitch in Detroit) is willing to lose money on a professional team. Wally Haas by being a “nice guy” and not a “smart businessman” put the A’s in this position.
When the A’s leave the Bay Area in the next few years it will hit every A’s fan real hard the reality of the situation.
I too believe it or not is praying for a “Oakland miracle” as I have come to terms that San Jose will never get a MLB team because of the Giants and dare I say it “Wally Haas”.
@Sid. Don’t agree with your assessment there. Never is a long time. Name one time in MLB history when the most economically beneficial course did not eventually win out.
Haas’ purpose in buying the team was to save major league baseball in the Bay Area for the benefit of the fans (I heard Roy Eisenhardt say that in a speech in 1982). That’s being a philanthropist, not a poor businessman.
“I have come to terms that San Jose will never get a MLB team…” Remember you stated this in the future Sid, because I’m confident we’ll both have a good laugh over this in the near future. Again, after the groundbreaking ceremony, first rounds on me at Henry’s!
[...] post started with a comment I made in the recent "What's Next for Oakland?" thread at vertigO's outstanding "New A's Ballpark" blog. VertigO/Marine Layer discussed the time line for [...]