Chronicle compares Giants’ Port deal with Warriors’ deal

Well, call it a deal framework for now. Plenty of detail needs to be hashed out to build a Warriors arena in South Beach, but at least the Chronicle’s John Coté has gone to the trouble of comparing the Warriors’ deal with what the City struck with the Giants 15 years ago.

SF Chronicle comparison of land deals for Warriors and Giants

For now, the city’s initial investment is higher, a reported $120 million for the W’s vs. $27 million (year 2000 dollars) for the Giants, not including project soft costs. In both cases, the tenant teams also received development rights to additional land. For the Giants it was the parking area on the other side of Mission Creek. The W’s would get Seawall 330 across the street, where some kind of high rise office tower, hotel, or residential building would presumably be constructed.

Not included in the comparison is the potential property tax impact. While infrastructure for AT&T Park was paid for via tax increment, that avenue is not directly available this time around for the Warriors. Instead, the City/Port could sell Seawall 330 to the W’s or offer a rebate of the City’s share of the W’s property tax payment (a subsidy). Let’s project that rebate a bit.

Say that the assessed value of the arena is $500 million. That’s low but could and will be argued by the Warriors as proper, just as it was by the Giants. That puts the annual property tax bill at $6 million per year if assessed at 1.2%. Roughly 30% of that goes to San Francisco, which is incorporated as both a City and County. The rest of the bill would go to schools, specifically SFUSD. That makes a potential rebate as much as $1.8 million, nearly the same amount as the W’s annual rent payment on Piers 30-32. The Warriors get a fantastic deal on two pieces of waterfront, an standard-bearer of an arena, and a massive franchise value increase due to the deal fundamentals. If you’re Joe Lacob and Peter Guber you jump on this deal toot sweet.

The City of Oakland should be following the progress of this deal project closely, as it provides a blueprint on how to make a Howard Terminal ballpark deal work out. At 40 acres, Howard Terminal provides space for both a ballpark and ancillary development. In San Jose there isn’t as much of an opportunity, since little city-owned land exists adjacent to the ballpark site.

13 Responses to Chronicle compares Giants’ Port deal with Warriors’ deal

  1. pjk says:

    re: At 40 acres, Howard Terminal provides space for both a ballpark and ancillary development.

    …what about all the limitations on the type of development since Howard Terminal is contaminated? We don’t even know if a ballpark would be an allowed use of the site, do we?

  2. berry says:

    @pjk

    Yeah i agree, that is why im looking forward to see what Oakland has done to Coliseum City project next week… it will be much cheaper and quicker to build than Howard Terminal.. in fact ill go a step further and say that if Oakland city leaders are going to shell out any type of money from their pocket.. its gonna be at the Coliseum, not at the more attractive HT… but as long as its in Oakland im fine…

    Why the hell the A’s kept Colon??? wish he wasnt suspended so he could have knocked a HR on Verlander….

  3. Tony D says:

    C’mon pjk, RM has to be fair and balanced. Telling the truth about Howard Terminal would get him labeled as an “Oakland hater.”
    FWIW RM, ancillary development in San Jose is possible between ballpark site and HP Pavilion, as well as south along W. San Carlos St.

  4. Marine Layer says:

    @pjk – We won’t know until an EIR is completed and land use negotiated.

    @Tony D – Much of the land north of the ballpark site is privately owned. City has no money to help acquire properties. That makes development in that area difficult.

  5. Tony D says:

    RM,
    but per the Diridon master plan, those parcels will eventually be developed, so eventually they’ll need to be acquired by someone. Why not Wolff or his real estate partners (ie DiNapoli Family).

  6. Tony D says:

    @berry,
    Coliseum City? For the Raiders, maybe and hopefully. For the A’s, it ain’t happening.

  7. Marine Layer says:

    @Tony D – In the past it’s always been the City facilitating that work. Much more difficult to do without City’s help, or with severe limitations.

  8. pjk says:

    On a side note: Work on the Earthquakes stadium proceeds at a snail’s pace. I just drove by the site and there’s no construction workers, no construction equipment there at all. Just some rock piles. This has been the case the few times I’ve driven by it since the Oct. 21 groundbreaking ceremony..

  9. Dan says:

    pjk, get used to it. The building permit hasn’t been approved yet so construction can’t start. Plus they still have to pull up the rest of the concrete and other garbage that liters the site that turned out to be much deeper than the initially thought. Besides, there’s no rush. The Quakes stadium will only take about 6-9 months to build and doesn’t open until March 2014. They probably won’t start the big stuff until next spring.

  10. Bryan Grunwald says:

    What i can’t reconcile is the duplicity the Port of Oakland is spouting. One the one hand they are saying that the Port of Oakland maritime business is growing so much that they are building out the Oakland Army Base as a logistics center. If that is the case, how could they not weigh in on the use of Howard Terminal as a non maritime use, especially after dredging it to 50 feet at the cost of millions of dollars. i think we need a clarification.

  11. jesse says:

    how are warriors going to get 120 million from Public Funds without RDA? they going to put that up to a vote?

  12. Marine Layer says:

    @jesse – The Port of SF has its own bonding capacity. The project would have to go through a referendum, just as AT&T Park did.

  13. Big Al says:

    im confused on how the warriors will get 2 million fans per year. im sure they must be including concerts and events but lets be real, that arena aint getting 2 million people per year

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>