No stone left unturned
Two articles from Sunday (Chronicle: Matier and Ross, Mercury News: Bruce Newman/Sharon Noguchi) point to a special trip made to the Bay Area last week by Commissioner Bud Selig’s three-person committee. The committee, which has been studying the A’s stadium issue for more than 40 months, met with San Jose officials on Tuesday, followed by Oakland officials on Wednesday.
The M&R report indicates that Oakland’s bid is moving towards a potential deal at Howard Terminal, anchored by a $40 million sale of land there to help kick things off. Present were Clorox CEO Don Knauss and Signature Properties’ Mike Ghielmetti.
The $40 million part has me confused. To whom would Howard Terminal be sold? To the A’s or some ownership group? To other developers like Ghielmetti? For years, the minimal entry for any Oakland site had to be to take care of the land and any infrastructure at the very least. But if that responsibility has to be shouldered by whomever builds a ballpark, the price to build the venue will only get higher. Remember that at Howard Terminal, some amount of reconstruction of the site’s foundation will be required to make it safe and suitable for a ballpark and perhaps other surrounding commercial development. If the ballpark costs $500 million just in construction cost, and the land acquisition and site preparation costs $140 million, the final price tag is $640 million!
It would’ve been interesting to find out how much time Knauss & Co. spent presenting themselves as ballpark backers first before jumping to a different role as would-be owners. Assuming that they pay the full freight on a ballpark and a minimum $500 million for the A’s, they’d have to come up with $1.14 billion for the whole package. That’s a tall sum just to keep the A’s in Oakland, no matter how it’s sliced. A downtown site such as Howard Terminal was expected to be more expensive than the Coliseum because of the added complexity in pulling off the deal, but is that difference (at least $100 million) worth it? It’s hard to pass judgment on Howard Terminal until we know more specifics. Nevertheless, at this point the committee is probably of many of these details, and that will be important for MLB’s continued evaluation.
Last Tuesday’s meeting with San Jose seemed to be a more ho-hum affair, with the exception of the presence of Brad Ruskin, a very prominent lawyer who has at one time represented all of the major pro sports leagues other than Major League Baseball (he has also represented some MLB clubs). One of his specialties is antitrust law, and he is a trial lawyer, so his presence may be to show that he could represent MLB in an antitrust case if push comes to shove. Opposing Ruskin would presumably be Allen Ruby, who the A’s brought on board earlier in the year.
For his part, Lew Wolff continues to be defiant in the face of questions about selling the team. His angle is that, unlike much outdated criticism about his previous efforts to put together a ballpark deal in Oakland and Fremont, his plan is simply to build a ballpark. Ancillary development using surrounding land is becoming more increasingly difficult to pull off, yet that’s the formula being espoused by all of the Oakland bids: Howard Terminal, Coliseum City, and Victory Court. The committee has to be taking all of this into account.
Another factor is State Controller John Chiang’s review of the land transfers between San Jose’s defunct Redevelopment Agency and the son-of-redevelopment San Jose Diridon Development Agency. If the transfers are upheld, Santa Clara County has indicated that it won’t make any further challenges to the land deal so the ballpark could conceivably move forward. If the transfers are ruled improper, the land would go to the the redevelopment successor agency, which would subsequently auction off the land. The land would be sold to the highest bidder, who may be someone other than Wolff. Keep in mind that San Jose would still hold the final trump card as it was would have any final determination over what could be done with the land. As much as AT&T claims that its land is of paramount importance to its service delivery model, they’d have sold the land years ago if it could’ve been rezoned to medium-density residential as was considered a decade ago. In any case, Wolff seemed confident that he’d be able to get the land however Chiang’s office ruled. That ruling is due in the next couple of weeks.
The cynic in me looks at this trip with a simple explanation. Summer owners’ meetings are scheduled for next week, and while there will be more pressing matters on the agenda (Padres sale, national TV deals, Nats-O’s-MASN deal) it’s expected that there will be some sort of update on the A’s-Giants ongoing saga. What better way to look like you’re doing something than to have a couple of meetings right before the owners’ sessions? It seems unlikely that Selig will be able to render a decision or bring up a vote based on whatever new information was gathered based on the trip since it’s so fresh, so it’s just one more opportunity to kick the can down the road – at least until November. In the meantime, whatever’s happening to the A’s on the field can take precedence, and that’s not a bad thing at all.
You sir are spot on…the feasibility of building a privately funded site rests entirely on its owners, yes the same “billionaire owners” you dislike. I don’t know about you, but anything that I invest in, I would like to recuperate my money in some fashion. These same billionaires that have been successful entrepreneurs in their respective industries (development and clothing) have ascertained that the ROI on Oakland is nil without some heavy subsidies from the city, which again as you stated is “never going to happen”. As much civic pride goes into painting a glamorous area chalk full of exciting redevelopment and such, even the late Al Davis recognized that it is a “depressed area”. There is no doubt that a new stadium in Oaktown would draw quite a number of folks in its first few years, but after the newness wears off and/or the team goes through eventual rebuilding cycle as all teams do, would it avoid the same situation they are in now, especially without the same corporate base as the South Bay to sustain it? We may never know, but when $500 million of your own dime is on the line, I think the safe, logical bet is on the booming city that has publicly embraced the A’s from a city government and corporate standpoint. So the question comes full circle: what does Oakland have to offer to guarantee the A’s will be successful not only in the short run, but for the long haul? Are you supportive of another PSL deal where the city is on the hook (a la the RAiders)? Would you ask Clorox / Chevron / Kaiser to sign hundreds of millions of dollars in advance commitment for naming rights / sponsorship? Again, money talks and bs walks….so far Oakland is doing a good job of the ladder and SJ the former….
Yay, let’s condone another phantom EIR that will take at least a year with nothing being done in the end! Woohooo!
@SS- so why did the city choose VC as their preferred site just over a year ago after re-analyzing all options? In their due diligence did they overlook HT? Bottom line is relocating a port is expensive and I doubt that Matson will pay for their own relocation-
@anonasfan – And yet again, another non-informed, Oakland-Only fan wants to shoot the messenger instead of looking at the facts. I wonder why no one in the Oakland camp, in seven years, has built another blog as informative and fact-based as Marine Layer. No, the only sites I see are based on feelings and nostalgia, ignoring facts and details. If you actually followed this site over the years, you’d see that ML calls out SJ too. The only difference is that SJ has a lot going for it, and has been proactive. Oakland has not. But that’s OK. If you want to keep thinking that this site is biased, then I challenge you to come up with your own blog that uses facts and common sense to conclude that Oakland is the answer.
HOK ranked Howard Terminal as the 4th most desirable site… Right behind Fremont and just ahead of Pleasanton. The other two ahead of it were the Coliseum and Uptown. For the record, Laney College was dead last out of 7 sites considered. This is objective analysis by a company that’s only skin in the game was a potential contract to help design the stadium. Not Lew Wolff, not Let’s Go Oakland… in other words, a mostly unbiased source.
.
Stanley, the report indicated that cost was a huge factor in making the sight less desirable. It was rated as the second most expensive. Additionally, Site factors were rated as the third worst of all the sites considered. That’s more than “The port doesn’t want a ballpark there.”
.
The one thing that really, really has to stop for Oakland boosters is the posturing of a business deal as “What’s in it for Oakland?” because that isn’t what is important to MLB. Wolff ownership or otherwise… Read about what happened in Milwaukee with Miller Park. They were all about a downtown Milwaukee stadium, but the Brewers didn’t care. And in the end the City paid for a park on the site of County Stadium because that was what the Brewers wanted, not what was best for the city.
.
The same story played out in many markets. The sales pitch to the team should be “What’s in it for the A’s?”
.
You guys also might want to start considering what it takes to privately finance a stadium. It is not a “false equvialncey” to point out that it would be easier in San Jose. In fact, it is just objectively stating the truth. It requires tons of presold Season tickets. It requires a very large naming rights deal. It isn’t a billionaire cutting a $500M check. These things are less likely in Oakland because of the much smaller Corporate base in the City proper.
@Stanley Stanson/anonasfan – From the Grove St. Pier (Howard Terminal) Historic American Buildings Survey from 1994:
Sure, it won’t need substantial work at all. All that epoxy and grout was just was the doctor ordered for a building that will be made of 10,000 tons of high-strength steel and 50,000 cubic yards of reinforced concrete, that will hold 40,000 at a time, 82 times a year. It absolutely needs a new study. Don’t be surprised if the price tag isn’t exactly friendly.
@ Jeffrey, if you think that HOK study was “objective” you don’t know how city politics work. Do you remember who commissioned it?
@ ML, i didn’t say it would be “free” to build on, I said HT was “pretty strong.” Can you point to anything in my post where I said what it would cost? My point, inarticulate as it may have been, is that the piers aren’t rotting into the bay. I understand it will cost money to prepare the site for construction. This is a transaction, like all other transactions, that needs to be negotiated between the parties.
Stanley, yeah. But are you really going to argue that Howard Terminal is better than Uptown would have been? That the people who commissioned it would have preferred Fremont to HT?
Where is the beef ? maybe the clueless mayor can show us
Jeffrey, no, not at all. I think the Uptown site was the best site. Jerry preferred housing. I think the idea was to position Uptown as the best Oakland site to put pressure on the team to come to the table. Also, HT had extremely different economic circumstances 10 years ago. I trust that aspect of my post was clear?
Stanley, the JPA commissioned the study. And while the circumstances of the site have changed in terms of its current use, so have they changed in the cost of construction and the amount of repairs and the degradation the site has undergone in the 11 years since HOK released their report that would offset any savings.
If HOK ranked Fremont high on the list then that study needs another look. A suburban park is not what anyone wants, particularly MLB.
Feasibility and desirability are two different things. Fremont was a more affordable option than several others in the study and was much more likely to be brought to fruition with a minimum of hassle as HOK saw it. And in reality it very well may have been if Wolff had chosen to fight or creatively negotiate at either site in Fremont. But he chose not to. I still think the big box stores at Pacific Commons could have been bought off with a small payment and some assurances. And the folks on the other side of 680 could equally have been placated with assurances had Wolff chosen to pursue the site north of the NUMMI/Tesla plant. For some reason Wolff just isn’t big on confrontation and so he rolled over in both cases to move on to SJ where he’s been equally as passive.
@Dan–I believe the bigger issue was the “village” concept around the ballpark crumbled with the economy. This coupled with the opposition made downtown SJ much more viable as the corporate support was necessary to privately build the ballpark v. the entitlements for development that he was banking on in Fremont. Personally I still believe if SJ doesnt happen then it will be back to Fremont especially as the housing market picks up again in Silicon Valley-
Two interesting quotes from an article in the Oakland Tribune that support what ML has written above—”The terminal was ranked fourth in a 2001 study by stadium designer HOK behind proposed sites in Downtown Oakland, the coliseum complex and Fremont. The firm determined that it would cost more than $100 million extra to build a stadium at the terminal rather than at the coliseum because parking spaces and other facilities would need to be constructed.” and a second on the 25 year lease signed by Maston and operated by SSA “Port spokesman Isaac Kos-Read said relocating SSA would not necessarily be a simple undertaking. “We don’t have a vacant terminal where they could move,” he said. “And we haven’t heard any interest on their part in moving.”
Stanley, the cost of building on the site is no different adjusting for inflation… Reading through the study today, much of the circumstances are the same:
.
Advantages:
Waterfront setting
Extension of Jack London Square
Restoration of existing shoreline
Disadvantages:
Proximity to transit and parking
Displaces port function (maybe less of a concern)
Key Issues:
Resolve parking requirements
Shared parking with entertainment and retail
Cost of relocation port and cranes
.
Ultimately, if there was a stadium on the site I would be there as often as I could be, I’d own season tickets and I’d eat hot dogs/drink beer with the rest of my fellow A’s fans. Personally, I think Oakland should be taking a different approach than this lame repeat of a PR war…
@Stanley Stanson – There is no sliding scale by which some piers could be used and some couldn’t. The foundation is either good enough or not good enough. That’s how it’s similar to Piers 30-32.
@GoA’s – This is the new article from the Tribune’s Matt Artz that you were referring to.
@Jeffrey – Add the need for a new streetscape, improved pedestrian access, and other necessary infrastructure to the disadvantages pile.
“If the city can show that it has a viable waterfront site with business support, it could make MLB owners more reluctant to revoke the Giants territorial rights to Santa Clara County and grant the A’s their wish to move to downtown San Jose.”
.
And the real reason that Howard Terminal has been brought back up comes to the fore. Never mind the same deficiencies that made HT one of the less attractive sites to HOK and the same deficiencies that made Wolff dismiss it during his search in Oakland still exist.
@anonasfan – excellent, sir.
_____________
@ML (sorry I’m late) – Agreed. MLB (or anybody else) is not in it to save Oakland. What I’m saying is if MLB is doubtful of strong corporate sponsorship in Oakland, building something like a brand new ballpark downtown will draw a GREAT DEAL of attention (and people) in Oakland – the kind of people they don’t think will actually come to Oakland. You know, the ones with plenty of disposable income and no criminal record? The kind of people who mill about after games looking for ways to spend money? The same kind of people that hold corporate jobs in San Francisco. Despite what it apparently seems like, Oakland is not a welfare state of Outer Mongolia.
There are lots and lots of educated people with corporate jobs who are not afraid of Oakland. In fact, they are quite proud of it. They’d make a mighty fine corporate target demographic. What you are likely not aware of is the yuppie movement that is currently taking place in Oakland. Lots of yuppies from SF have taken the plunge and have considered Oakland a viable alternative to the high-cost living of SF. They are part of the reason the night life is taking off. They are huge part of the reason why some of SF’s eateries have found their way to Oakland. Oakland, despite its endless parade of bad press, is growing something very unique right now. Pardon the oxymoron, but peace is going to take Oakland by force.
Just yesterday, I got an email from my A’s ticket rep. I haven’t bought season tickets in..oh..around 7 years. I told him, “If you can get me a job in Oakland, I will buy season tix again next year.” I meant it. If they build a new park anywhere in Oakland for the A’s, Raiders or Warriors (insert joke here), I promise I will get a job in town, buy season tickets to all three and sincerely try to go to every single game. I will take out a second if I need to.
The A’s can MAKE Oakland a gold mine by building a new park and drawing corporate sponsorship to THEM. The problem is: Lew owns land in SJ and doesn’t want to to concede a loss, so he’s not going to give up on the design he’s had for the A’s since he bought in. I’ll say it again: Oakland CAN work, Lew doesn’t want it to.
What Land does Lew own in SJ that he would have to take a loss on?
“If I was going to pursue a ballpark, I would certainly do it in San Jose, not depend on a vote outside of San Jose, and I would work through the mayor and the Redevelopment Agency,” said Wolff. “It’s the difference between a big-league city and a non-big-league city. I wouldn’t spend five minutes on any other city besides San Jose.”- Lew Wolff 1998
The quote is priceless.LOL and watch the people who hate Oakland come out and try and spin this claiming he tried in Oakland. Busniess men are quite slick and most are dishonest. Liars you anti Oakland people are just like Wolff….but no worries. San Jose will not happen. And when it doesn’t Wolff will sell for sure and Marine Layer’s site will be done LMAO
It’s not about being afraid of Oakland. It’s about being able to get to the games conveniently and often enough to justify buying season tickets, boxes, suites, etc. You aren’t going to get enough companies to commit to that if you’re in Oakland. There just aren’t enough of those companies in the East Bay. And the ones that can easily get there from SF can more easily get to AT&T Park. Ditto the ones in San Jose. The only way you are going to capture the corporate dollar in SJ is to be in their backyard. Furthermore, the only way you’re going to be able to privately finance a stadium is with that corporate money.
re: The A’s can MAKE Oakland a gold mine by building a new park and drawing corporate sponsorship to THEM.
..Didn’t Oakland and the Raiders already try this and fail? Brand new, state-of-the-art suites were built for the Raiders in 1995 and the team has had trouble selling them ever since. Why would it be any different for the A’s? Except in this case, the team owners would be on the hook for the massive shortfall in funds, not the city. Any wonder the A’s owners are not willing to make this gamble, given the poor experience that’s already happened with trying to sell luxury suites in Oakland?
With all the HT talk I’m surprised nobody is mentioning the alameda naval air station. I would rather spend money cleaning up that dirt than fixing those piers and buying out an entrenched co.
talked about it on chron live.
…
kawakami said it’s about 51-49 right now in terms of sj-oak in his odds. he thinks this meeting was all about the shitty brc taking everything in account when it deals with the site in sj and oakland. in the end if they feel oakland isn’t doable, then they’ll try to force the issue on sj. if they do feel sj isn’t an option then they at least have an option for an oakland site even though NO MENTION on how much it’d cost and whos the willing partcipants who are gonna pay the billion plus that it’ll likely take to buy the a’s from wolff/fisher and then do everything it takes to make HT work as a viable park site.
…
typical poole being the pro oakland guy saying that he thinks the a’s will remain in oakland because the tr are something mlb doesn’t want to set a precedent on. how about the bull shit precedent that no other fucking two team market have tr? how about that poole?! how is it the a’s got this bs rule in this area while every other market doesn’t have. that seems to be a FACT that no other bay area media writer other than a few even mention. he also thinks it’d cost a “billion” dollars to get to sj due to what he thinks is what it’ll take to pay the tr fee and the park cost itself in sj. as previously discussed and as ML posted previously if the a’s and more importantly feel sj is the only option, no way are they gonna screw the a’s over and pay the same cost it’ll build the stadium as it would to pay off the tr fee.
…
when asked about 41 months from now which has been the time the brc has been taken at this time from when it was commishioned, where the a’s will be playing. poole said oakland and kawakami said the a’s will be in oakland but that doesn’t mean that in the end they’ll still be there.
Who cares what Poole thinks? Its not like he is using any facts to base his opinion on
I don’t see how any of the waterfront sites are convincing enough to justify a private investment of $600 million. Ultimately, that it is the problem.
.
MLB won’t force Wolff et al to sell. Oakland won’t be willing to put up any of the construction costs.
.
It’s all a waste of time.
.
Again.
yeah the pro oaklands sure got excited when victory court and the coliseum city projects were announced. how are those two sites looking right now in terms of viable oakland sites for an a’s park, and just like with this howard terminal site doubt we’ll hear it as a legit option a few months from now once word comes out on how expensive it’ll be just as those two sites look like distant memories.
…
it’s been said before but a’s fans who just want the a’s to stay in the bay area. sj is the most realistic option left here locally to build a new park for the a’s and for it to make financial sense for both the a’s and mlb.
@TruthDropper: What obligation does Lew Wollff have to “try to make it work in Oakland?” It seems to me that he’s a businessman and the only thing he needs to try to do is make a profit from his business. If Oakland has a good way to help him do that, they shouldn’t keep it a secret.
.
And frankly, a new proposed site every year doesn’t instill me with confidence that Oakland is on the ball.
I’m with letsgoas … Some of us want A’s baseball, period. Oakland, SJ, whatever … Some of us don’t live in either community but are Bay Area residents all the same and want them to stay local
“If I was going to pursue a ballpark, I would certainly do it in San Jose, not depend on a vote outside of San Jose, and I would work through the mayor and the Redevelopment Agency,” said Wolff. “It’s the difference between a big-league city and a non-big-league city. I wouldn’t spend five minutes on any other city besides San Jose.”- Lew Wolff 1998
*
That shows clearly how full of * Wolff has been with his efforts in Oakland and Fremont.
@Ted–and that is why the brc was establised 40+ months ago–and have they concluded anything different than LW? Why is BS actively trying to negotiate a settlment with the gints on TR so the A’s can move to SJ—your bias as a gints fan completely clouds any reality of impartialty that you try and promote at times-
GoA’s, Lew Wolff has claimed to have considered options other than San Jose and I think that is a load of crap.
I have no idea what the BRC has concluded and I don’t think anyone here does either and I am not so sure that Selig is actively trying to negotiate a path to San Jose for the A’s, what makes you think he is?
I have been honest about how I feel about the Giants, A’s and San Jose since the first time I posted here.
Ted wrote:
You think that because you’re a Johnny-come-lately to this situation who has repeatedly shown a general ignorance of the history here. Honestly, it wouldn’t kill you to read about this to some level of depth.
@Ted–you mean besides the news reports that he is actively involved in trying to settle the dispute http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1022219-oakland-athletics-bud-selig-hard-at-work-to-resolve-san-jose-situation or maybe that both LW and LB recently saying the decision is in his hands-
You have moved from the A’s moving to SJ is bad business for the city of SJ to LW never tried in Oakland–you have one objective–you would love to see the A’s leave the bay area—personally I despise a troll like you trying to impact my team that has as much right to the bay area market as the gints
relative to your claim that LW never considered anything but SJ—once again the brc was set up to assess all options—how many more does Oakland throw on the table for them to take a look at—
ML, I will do my best but I doubt there is anything I have missed that will lead me to believe that Wolff ever put any effort into finding a solution in Oakland. I don;t think he was lying when he said: “I wouldn’t spend five minutes on any other city besides San Jose.”
*
GoA’s, according to the AP article that the Bleacher Report post cites: “Commissioner Bud Selig says Major League Baseball is working “at a rather quick pace” to resolve the proposed move the Oakland Athletics to a proposed new ballpark in San Jose.” That doesn’t mean that he is trying to get the A’s to San Jose.
I have figured that Wolff was only considering San Jose for longer than I have been reading this site. I would be happy with the A;s staying in Oakland. I think it would be good for baseball and fair to the Giants.
Calling me a troll because you disagree with me is pretty weak. I am not posting to get a response, your team is trying to impact both my team and my city.
@Ted – That’s the thing. He spent from 2005 to 2009 on Fremont and Oakland. That’s a lot more than 5 minutes.
@martin – Alameda NAS isn’t practical. Access to and from the island is poor, and since the base is at the western end, a stadium would require its own bridge over the deep water channel, which would be extremely expensive. Plus there’s no BART. It’s a big reason why development of the area has moved at a glacial pace.
ML, perhaps he considered Fremont but I have no reason to believe he gave Oakland any serious thought. What evidence is there that he spent more than 5 minutes considering Oakland?
@Ted – Read away.
8/20/05 – Coliseum South = Plan B?
1/3/06 – Oakland: Let’s Try Plan B
5/7/09 – Saperstein’s Other Letter
11/5/09 – West Oakland Murmurs
That’s just a few. There are many more where that came from. I know it doesn’t fit into the evil owner narrative, but facts are facts.
@Ted – You got moded!
I’ve been trying to search for nice pics online of the HT people say that has a nice view of the waterfront but all I can find is a bit of dirty a$$ looking water and a sh*tty backdrop of Alameda Island and what looks like industrial warehouses and such. If anyone has any pics or links of the nice views that would be great.
Many discussions ago Ted showed his singular POV is for the Giants to be as strong as possible — and will stretch things in all 4 directions with that goal in mind. He prefers the A’s to be weak for the benefit of the Giants.
Sorry Ted but that is reality. I am not saying you can’t do that, I am saying you’re posts here are highly suspect because you choose to do it. The latest, the feigned outrage over LW, is just another to add to the list.
Ultimately, heaven forbid! the A’s get as fair a shot at the Bay Area as the Giants……….and the Giants have to stay on top of their game (on and off the field) to remain most successful! We just couldn’t have that!
Keep in mind that while Lew Wolff was “working with” oakland during those times he had his real estate partners put together Baseball San Jose in 2004.
@DJR–perhaps because LW was quite aware of what Oakland was capable of doing. Lets be honest here Oakland has yet to land on a site—the easiest part of this challenge—17 years after ruining the Coli and nearly 4 years since the BRC was commissioned— how can anyone defend Oakland and their efforts—or lack of?
How long can Oakland keep hopping and skipping back to already-looked-at-and-rejected sites before MLB says enough is enough?
Dino, Lew Wolff was not involved in forming Baseball San Jose. Rather business leaders and former politicians from SJ were. Remember San Jose has been pursuing a baseball team far longer than the A’s have been interested in moving. It was once the Giants they were after
I love how pro Oaklanders keep on distorting facts to support their cause. I mean, from emotional standpoint, there’s no arguing tales like Lakeshores, but when it comes to actual data, it’s better to say nothing then to spew out false information. It just makes you guys look bitter to try and libel and slander everything to your perspective. Speaking of which, what happened with SOS last night?
Lew Wolff is most certainly a suspect character in terms of site evaluation. If you figure him to be a fair dealer in this conversation you are the poorest of people around at judging character.
Wolff was brought in by Schott/Hoffman – two South Bay developers who intended from day one to try and move the team to the South Bay. Wolff’s projects since the sale have been geared toward making him money on the real estate end of the deal. That is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR for Lew Wolff. End of story. He’s not the majority dollar owner of the team. That owner is going to make their money off team value appreciation. When the A’s are sold the current owners will make a TON of money on the deal. Fact.
This is not an expansion team fighting to locate a stadium site. This is a team that is part of the civic culture of Oakland since 1968. The default position must be that the Oakland A’s remain the Oakland A’s. I’m not an “Oakland-only” person – in fact I think it’s 50/50 that the A’s leave town completely (ie not the South Bay). And I’m ok with that. The reality is that in the Bay Area Oakland is a superior site for a new ballpark than San Jose. San Jose as a market only has proximity to a certain segment of corporate dollars to its advantage. The East Bay has the population and fan base and adequate corporate/business money.
Dogging the city of Oakland is a popular past-time for those who don’t know anything about Oakland. Oakland was built as an enclave for the wealthy. Physically more than half of the city is beautiful, clean, fancy stuff populated by relatively wealthy people. The majority of people who don’t like Oakland judge it from the view on the freeway – hmmm, you think nice houses and neighborhoods are next to major interstates????
Further, the East Bay area’s axis is in Oakland and the greater East Bay is huge, has a large corporate base, and has an adequate average earnings to support the A’s.
The East Bay is a 3 million person market and the South Bay is less than 2 million. Only a buffoon would suggest that moving a team to a 50% smaller market is a good long-term strategy. It is rather obvious that the A’s with locally-committed owners with more than halfway competent business skills in a new MLB-only facility in downtown Oakland would have a thriving franchise over the short and long term. Acknowledge this and you may appear as an un-biased observer and only then can we have a rational discussion about the next point:
The key question is: can a new facility be built in Oakland.
Let’s look at this a little bit because this site purports that the South Bay has it together on this issue:
1. A site is needed. The municipal government needs to be able to drive site acquisition, permitting, etc, to pave the way for a ballpark development. The lack of this in Oakland has been the primary argument against feasibility for a new A’s ballpark there. THIS APPEARS TO HAVE CHANGED. The reason HOK and others were down on the HT site in the past was because it was wholly owned by the Port and the Port was not amenable to the site being used for that purpose. THAT WAS A BIG DEAL and would have made it prohibitively expensive to pursue that site – which is why the site was deemed “not viable” in the past.
If the Port is now taking the opposite approach and actively asking Oakland to help them free up some cash we have a different situation. $40 million for the site is a bargain and the wheels are all greased here. Site acquisition is the biggest obstacle. If this site is being handed on a golden platter it’s foolish to sneer in the face of that. The main thing San Jose has done right is drive site acquisition for the A’s. Here we have an even better arrangement popping up in Oakland yet you are skeptical???
2. Financing the stadium.
This is a really good question. What scheme does the Wolff/Fisher ownership group plan to use to finance a new stadium? In Fremont it was a combined real estate/stadium deal that depended on some favorable zoning swaps to essentially get the developer owners a sweetheart deal in exchange for developing the stadium. If this kind of deal can pencil out in Fremont or San Jose it can pencil out in Oakland – not exactly a cheap place to buy or develop real estate itself.
Other than inherent anti-Oakland sentiment there is little reason to be skeptical of the HT site if the Port is now amenable to using it for a stadium. I’d like to see one of you explain in detail how a San Jose ballpark is going to be financed using a scheme that is not possible to use in downtown Oakland.
The A’s are not just Oakland’s team. They are a team supported by the East Bay and San Francisco and the North Bay and Sacramento. They draw their fans and corporate sponsorship from the same pool as the SF Giants.
@anonasfan – This is where you tripped yourself up.
You wasted so much time writing your response and yet you couldn’t grasp a basic tenet of Wolff’s argument, which is that the entitlements-based financing model is not feasible anywhere anymore. Not in Fremont, not in San Jose (moot because there isn’t land anyway), and most certainly not in Oakland. The only thing that can pay for the stadium is to guarantee or secure the debt via lots and lots of upfront pledged money. That means corporate sponsorships, naming rights, long-term suite contracts, etc. It’s this model where Oakland is notoriously weak. Much of the East Bay’s corporate strength will be there regardless of location (Chevron, PG&E, AT&T/Verizon/Comcast). That’s not the case for many South Bay companies, who may not have large presences in the East Bay.
re: This is a team that is part of the civic culture of Oakland since 1968.
..then why has attendance been so poor over the 44 years the team has been here? 15 playoff appearances but just 7 times in the top half of attendance. Why did elected officials in Oakland decide to ruin the stadium and then give hundreds of millions of dollars to the Warriors and Raiders and nothing to the A’s? Shabby treatment of a “part of the civic culture of Oakland,” I’d say.