Initial renderings show Howard Terminal ballpark outside of BCDC jurisdiction

Howard Terminal ballpark backers are looking for solutions to get past the BCDC. In their case the solution appears to be to build the ballpark outside the area the BCDC regulates. Say, what is the BCDC’s jurisdiction, anyway? Glad you asked. From the website (emphasis mine):

The open water, marshes and mudflats of greater San Francisco Bay, including Suisun, San Pablo, Honker, Richardson, San Rafael, San Leandro and Grizzly Bays and the Carquinez Strait.

The first 100 feet inland from the shoreline around San Francisco Bay.

The portion of the Suisun Marsh-including levees, waterways, marshes and grasslands- below the ten-foot contour line.

Portions of most creeks, rivers, sloughs and other tributaries that flow into San Francisco Bay.

Salt ponds, duck hunting preserves, game refuges and other managed wetlands that have been diked off from San Francisco Bay.

At 50 acres in size, Howard Terminal is a large enough property that plans can be drawn up to move structures around so that they can avoid the BCDC. Ah, but it isn’t quite that simple. Part of Howard Terminal is a pier built over the estuary, so that area is considered tidelands and is in all likelihood within the BCDC’s jurisdiction. Waterfront Action has a map showing where various Tidelands Trust lands lie along the Oakland Estuary.

tidelands_downtown

Map of Tidelands Trust areas where development is highly restricted (note Victory Court’s location in upper right)

If you look at the Howard Terminal section, the Tidelands extend inland past the cranes, as much as 300 feet. Add another 100 feet to cover the BCDC boundary and you have the defined area that escapes the jurisdiction. That means that there could be as much as 400 feet from the water’s edge to the outer wall of the ballpark, the length of home plate to center field at the Coliseum (sorry, no splash hits folks). The BCDC could rule that the shoreline starts at the water’s edge, which would allow the ballpark to be built closer to the water. It will probably take the BCDC and the State Lands Commission to sort all of that out. The recently closed RFP for Howard Terminal explains this further:

Tidelands Trust Compliance

Howard Terminal is currently encumbered by the Tidelands Trust. Uses of the property are therefore generally limited to water oriented commerce, navigation, fisheries, and regional or state-wide recreational uses. Approval from the State Lands Commission would be required for any uses of the property that are not Tidelands Trust compliant. Many non-maritime activities are not considered Trust compliant uses and thus may require lengthy negotiations with the State Lands Commission, and potential legislation, before the Port could proceed with such non-Trust uses for the property.

Howard Terminal ballpark on west end of property

Whatever the final ruling is, filling in that empty area would be open space, which partly explains the presence of the cranes. The crane supports currently at Howard Terminal are nearly 120 feet deep from front to back. A promenade and open space fills that area, which is a good idea (you basically can’t get anything big developed in coastal California without providing open space these days).

Entirety of Howard Terminal with Downtown Oakland in background

A side effect of this placement is that the ballpark would actually be closer to the West Oakland BART station than the 12th Street Downtown Oakland station by a few hundred feet (4,800 vs. 5,100). In either case it’s a pretty lengthy distance and would be best bridged by shuttles.

Despite the placement of the ballpark in hopes of avoiding the BCDC, work done on the waterfront parts of the site would fall under the commission’s sway, even the conversion to open space. That’s because there is a land use covenant in place that is also highly restrictive, preventing all manner of structures from being built there without significant cleanup plans.

Now let’s look at one more picture. It’s an old one from the 2001 HOK study – the one that had Howard Terminal finishing among the worst with $177.5 million in needed infrastructure and other costs.

hok-2001-ht

2001 HOK study rendering of A’s ballpark at Howard Terminal

Note the differences between this image and the newer ones. In the newer renderings the ballpark is on the western half. In the older vision the ballpark’s on the eastern half. There’s also a convention center, hotel, and 1,900-space parking garage here. Mayor Quan referred to Howard Terminal as being zoned for a convention center, but was that an actual result of this study or similar efforts? I’ve seen no record to indicate this happened. In addition the 2001 HOK plan shows the original shoreline as reclaimed, but with a promenade extending out as connected piers, presumably to acknowledge the site’s 100 years as an operating port facility.

With these renderings, there are a few questions to carry forward.

  • It’s not at all clear how much control the BCDC has over the site. Where is the true BCDC jurisdictional boundary?
  • Given the site’s use as a port, how much say will the State Lands Commission have in lieu of the BCDC?
  • How much do the land use covenant’s restrictions affect the cost to build here?
  • Will a full cleanup be required, or can Oakland get away with limited cleanup if only certain uses are realized?

I’m sure there will be more questions to come. Those can be answered with a feasibility study and an environmental impact report.

179 thoughts on “Initial renderings show Howard Terminal ballpark outside of BCDC jurisdiction

  1. Rationality be damned. I love this site and the use of the cranes in the outfield backdrop. Just another rendering that will break my heart.

  2. Gojohn, pretty much my reaction. After seeing renderings at a half dozen other sites in the last 15 years these no longer get me excited. I’ll be much more excited when they come up with a way to pay for it in Oakland or to make it pass muster with MLB in San Jose.

  3. Ha! More pics without an EIR or explanation of how it will be paid for. Nice, Oakland! At least you can say you hired decent artists for these renderings that’ll probably remain just that.

  4. ML,

    Just for curiosity’s sake (trust me, I do NOT believe this is gonna happen), how much of the actual estuary do you think will be visible from the ballpark? Wouldn’t the most prominent view from the park actually just be the island of Alameda? Wouldn’t there be an uproar from Alameda residents who’d potentially be affected by stadium lights?

    I don’t see this as an AT&T Park replica; I see this stadium as having more in common with Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati.

  5. @BayMetro, stadiums have gotten very good at minimizing the impact of lights and PA systems as to not disrupt life in nearby residential neighborhoods. Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, in particular, did a phenomenal job. They’d be able to keep the light and sound from bleeding outward too much.

  6. @ML–I know your tweet suggests LW should show his numbers on HT–doesn’t matter what he shows it will never be enough for oakland-only crowd. This is the time for mlb to step up and either put their support behind it or say it wont work–

  7. re: I know your tweet suggests LW should show his numbers on HT–doesn’t matter what he shows it will never be enough for oakland-only crowd.

    …GoA’s is right.

    • @GoA’s/pjk – The numbers are for the silent majority of fans and voters who actually want to know, not the recalcitrant types.

  8. I still say the BRC was established for a reason-let them do the dirty work of telling why HT doesn’t make sense rather than put it on LW’s shoulders–

    On a separate note–givent that the gints primary focus is getting the A’s out of the Bay Area I wonder if HT truly was viable then I would expect that their TR stonewalling may soften a bit. Having a ATT duplicate across the water isn’t what they have in mind.

  9. ML, agreed. I think it would definitely help Wolff’s cause vis-a-vis HT to point to some hard evidence that here THIS is why Howard Terminal doesn’t work. I don’t doubt he has information to that effect, it’s not a leap given what we know already (that $500 million private parks in more corporate rich SJ are already giving MLB pause, that HT had almost $200 million in cleanup costs 13 years ago, that HT still may be used for a maritime use, etc…). But Wolff putting it out there would once and for all end this charade allowing Oakland to focus on the one plan they have that has a chance in hell of coming to fruition at the Coliseum (or finding a new more realistic site).

  10. GoAs: The Giants have the same BRC info as the rest of the owners. They know HT is a nonstarter and therefore don’t have to fear a competing, waterfront ballpark going up in view of theirs.

  11. @GoA’s/pjk
    We all know it’s not about the Oakland only folks, it’s not about Oakland, or San Jose, and for goodness sack it’s not about Oakland vs. San Jose, and probably not San Jose vs. MLB, this all comes down to one thing the SF Giants, that’s whom has to be satisfied that HT, and CC, can’t work and MLB through the SF Giants.
    That’s why Wolff may be forced to show that it does not, and you know the SF Giants will not relent in tell he does just that, we would not even be debating this, as the A’s would have moved to the South Bay 15 years ago, if it were not for the Giants, it’s not fair to Lew and the A’s, but nothings fair in Love and War, and to the Giants this is War.

  12. That’s a beautiful design but at his moment that’s all it is. I must say all of this news with SJ and Oakland and trades has made for a busy offseason.

  13. Lakeshore: The Giants have already shown they are not going to relent. They view the A’s predicament as not their problem. It’s their opportunity, actually – the A’s departure gives them the Bay Area all to themselves. Remember Selig’s comment about how Wally Haas acted in “the best interests of baseball” regarding Santa Clara County? He made no similar remark about how the Giants are acting. We can be sure the Giants already have seen all the data Wolff has to offer.

  14. @pjk–good point–

    @LSN-agree yet the gints don’t have to be satisfied if the sites don’t work–they know the sites don’t work—which is why they can try and charge a kings ransom for SJ TR because they realize there are no other options for A’s–either SJ or out of Bay Area–

  15. nice always thought that howard terminal would be the most visually appealing of any site the a’s could build a park, realistic or not, even over uptown which was probably the most realistic site to build a park back a decade or so ago or even sj which imo will be the eventually landing spot for the a’s.

    just too bad i doubt howard terminal would make sense financially for anybody to build.

  16. Regardless of everything else with the site, I love the AT-AT cranes in the outfield.

  17. thumbs up for the AT-AT’s from me too. I hate that it is an AT&T Park copycat. The A’s will need to compete with Giants for corp/casual fans. If you are given the choice between AT&T Park in a world class city or a copy in the not as well thought of neighbor… It’s pretty easy to know which most casual fans/corp marketers are going to pick.
    .
    Differentiation is important.
    .
    Also, everyone who wants to argue that this sin’t what they have in mind, an AT&T copycat, read the first sentence of Matier and Ross or look at the LGO website and how it frames the opportunity… I wish these guys were being braver and bolder to make something unique. Cranes aren’t what I mean.
    .
    I get that part of the motivation is to help spur Signature Properties other potential development in the immediate area (anyone notice that Brooklyn Basin is referred to in the article as “hopes to build…” much different than the “we got a bozillion dollars and this thing is happening this week” that a lot of people were proclaiming earlier this year), and like I said before I would be pushing for the same thing if I were one of the developers that wants to build a project in the area. I just wouldn’t want this for reasons other than cost if I were the owner of the A’s. I’d want something better than what the Giants have, and to be better you have to be substantially different.

  18. btw, why is a Frisco newspaper getting the info?

  19. @pjk/GoA’s
    To both of you, good points, and well that Kings ransom may be what cases as to lose our team, if MLB does not step in, or in the unlikely chance that SJ vs. MLB actually work out.

  20. A strongly pro-Oakland friend of mine says I’m wrong, but, given the ballpark orientation in the drawings, wouldn’t the batter (and most of the expensive seats) be looking into the setting sun?

  21. @Jeffrey
    You are so all over it.

  22. I will say the renderings of Howard Terminal above look quite nice but forget the stadium guys as the infrastructure around it would take longer to upgrade than building the actual stadium itself.

    The devil is in the details and with no EIR as ML pointed out you really have zero. San Jose at least has a completed EIR and has the infrastructure in place because of the Sharks plus only needs to use eminent domain on two businesses on the Diridon site itself.

    I have said all long Bud Selig cannot stomach the thought of two privately financed ballparks in the same market.

    Selig thinks San Jose would not make the A’s a revenue sharing generator and thinks the A’s will ridden themselves with debt and cripple the Giants in the process.

    Selig is so old and dumb he does not see the 1.2B stadium the 49ers are building 9 miles way.

    This idiot cannot do the math and think if the 49ers can build a 1.2B stadium privately and make $$ how own earth can the A’s build a 460M stadium and not make $$ on 81 home games?

    He saw the SVLG letter and totally ignored it. If he were do independent polling in San Jose he would find people would attend the games as there is no option nearby.

    Forget the massive corporate support who is “all in” and have a letter to prove it.

    But as Stephen A. Smith says “baseball is always last to the party”. When it came to instant replay for example, MLB just now has expanded it. Or even expanding the playoffs in 1994, way behind the other leagues.

    It is because of this San Jose had to sue. SJ is running its lawsuit in the 9th Circuit and State Court on two fronts. Pressuring MLB to spend more $$ on this and force them to do the right thing.

    There is no way this will be settled before Selig leaves office. Our best hope is a new younger commissioner who will do the right thing.

    Our next best bet is San Jose pushes their lawsuit the way Seattle and Piazza did (Tampa Bay) and takes down MLB in court.

  23. This comment, along with several suggesting Oakland needs to spend money on police officers and not stadiums, was attached to the M&R report re: HT. Anybody know about this? “300 days a year the wind blows across the shipping docks and metal recycling plants which would blow directly into the stadium. Not pleasant!”

  24. If Quan really wants to keep the A’s in Oakland (instead of doing a cheap political stunt which the HT proposed site appears to be) Oakland should focus on the CC plan – not a dopey, costly clone of phone company park – and get their investors lined up (similiarly to how Sacto city officials kept the Kings from bolting to Seattle, Also – Sac was in much more danger of losing the Kings than Oakland losing the A’s and accomplished all their work in two months besides, not 19+ and counting years)

  25. I don’t think Selig is dumb at all. I think your statement about not wanting to see two privately financed venues in the same market is dead on. Private venues do nothing for MLB’s bottom line. He’d probably rather wait for another Cobb Co than let the A’s shoulder half a billion in debt. It’s not only better for the team, but the league too. And Selig’s primary concern has always been the health of his league.

  26. I always thought that Victory Court was the best and really the only realistic site for a near waterfront A’s ballpark. Does anyone know the circumstances as to how, why, and who had rejected this proposed site? Despite the difficulties and seemingly big expense to acquire the land for a ballpark at that site, it did not have anywhere as much of the negatives that Howard Terminal seems to have.

  27. Victory Court was going to need a pile of money to be acquired, with many owners not willing to sell, if I recall correctly. The only way to get that money was via redevelopment, which was deep-sixed by Jerry Brown, the same guy who vetoed any chance for an Uptown Oakland ballpark.

  28. ML, sunset is fine but won’t day games be rather rough on the hitters when the sun is out?

  29. Sigh….another Oakland proposal that will eventually be proven to be vaporware (VC anyone?).

    If SJ really wants the A’s, they should just drop out of the horse race now and scare MLB into pushing Oakland to prove how serious (or foolish) their proposals are. You’ll see MLB running to SJ in a year or so, guaranteed!

  30. I think whether this “proposed ballpark” is outside of BCDC jurisdiction is the least of the issues present. Like saying that $2 million beach house in Maui I want to build is just outside the tsunami flood zone…

  31. @Anon MLB is doing exactly that right now, they left SJ open by there ruling that the A’s “current” plans was unfeasible, that is why Oakland is continuing with the process so MLB is playing both city’s to get something done, and supposedly part of the reason was low seating capacity at Cisco field, Oakland’s seating is 38k… for a reason, satisfying one of MLB’s concerns

  32. It’s really a shame HT is such an issue prone site (and that it’s next to impossible to pay for), it really would be a gorgeous location for a park. Some are concerned that it’s an AT&T Park ripoff, but frankly… so what?

    AT&T Park is often regarded as the best park in the current post Camden crop (and is always in the top 5 on lists of best parks in the country). I mean I’m partial to unique takes on parks myself rather than straight copies (I’ve made no secret I think Petco in San Diego is the best park in the country and what the A’s should strive to emulate). That said if it’s a copy of any park it’s less AT&T and more PNC Park (which is also one of the highest rated parks in the country) with its more set back location from the water and scoreboard in left rather than center. In either case though, they’d be emulating two of the best parks in the country, I see no issue with that. Is it unique, no, but then you can argue few parks have truly been “unique” since Camden Yards except maybe that iPod ripoff disaster they built in Miami and Nationals Park. And I’d rather they replicate what has proven to work design wise than experiment and give us another whacky failure like Miami or bland characterless park like Washington.

  33. Karim,
    Respectfully, THERE IS NO PROCESS GOING ON IN OAKLAND! My apologies for being so harsh, but that’s the truth. Simply coming out with cool drawings and spouting out a lot of political hot air does not constitute a “plan” or “process.” This is the same crap Quan put you guys through with Victory Court; and the result? Same result will happen with this even more pie in the sky HT “proposal.” Wolff, who IS MLB for all intent purposes, is done with the city of Oakland (at least long-term after the Coli lease expires). Again, it’s all about an SJ payoff and nothing else.

  34. @many A’s fans want nothing to do with the giants or their goofy ballpark (including a lame copy of it)The Coliseum City plan makes much more sense.

  35. ML, it’s obvious that as of now Wolff doesn’t see the financial viability, and it’s also obvious that Oakland won’t be using taxpayer money to fund this project. But is it possible that Oakland could sweeten the pot for the current (or potential future) ownership group by essentially giving away development rights to the surrounding area that the ownership could make massive profits off of once the stadium is built? There have to be creative ways that the City of Oakland can help out without it being an expense that gets flung directly on the taxpayers.

    • @Lev – Not sure how that works. The Port owns the land at the waterfront, private interests own just about everything between The Embarcadero and 880. It’s not as if Oakland can just swoop in and buy everything and give it to the A’s, redevelopment-style. They already discussed that option as part of the plan for Victory Court, and that died a quick death with the RDAs. Hell, that was the plan for Coliseum North in the throes of the redevelopment era and that still went nowhere.

  36. Duffer, If HT ever did become a reality I doubt anyone would care that it shared some passing similarities to Pac Bell. As long as it’s a nice new park, with all the bells and whistles that the A’s could call home for several decades no one would care too much about the replication of one of the better parks in baseball. After all, Giants fans haven’t cared that their park is ultimately a rip off of Wrigley Field and Fenway Park these last 13 years.

  37. @ Karim – I think you’re misunderstanding my post: I want SJ to give a big “FU” to Bud Selig / BRC / MLB and say they’re no longer interested in baseball @ SJ, and not try to “make” (even they never made one; it was LW who made the original proposal) another offer. MLB is trying to play both cities still….and I don’t want SJ to have any part of it until they run back begging realizing how deceitful Oakland’s intentions are….

  38. @ Tony D okay we wont call it a process, they spent millions on firms and coming up with renderings and paying lawyers to research viability and cost for the projects, etc. It’s just wasted money to show some cute pictures. If that’s the case how bout Lew sit down with this team and show him why it wont work and hear why the city feels it will work and what the city will provide to help and make sure it will work to help the A’s succeed and Lew turn a profit, i.e such as another poster suggested development rights for hotel, condos etc,(according to Pro SJ Peeps only development can work in SJ even though it will be a area far away from a park)

  39. @Anon Okay got it, and It will force MLB to figure out what to do now that there negotiation chip is gone.

  40. Yes, San Jose could go with the “Who is really helping who here by offering this site?” stance with MLB. Sell off the Diridon site for office development and then let MLB continue to fail to find a solution in Oakland. Then what happens? Oakland’s strategy of press conferences and fancy stadium drawings, while continue to offer $0.00 for actual stadium construction, assures us the status quo remains until another city is found to take the team.

  41. @Karim,
    Wow…JUST WOW! Quan and Co. got yah…(that’s to bad)

  42. There are many issues to tick off the list:
    Adjacent development… How much development can the surrounding area actually support?
    Corp support- How many corporations can they get to sponsor the building by buying expensive packages and signs within the stadium.
    .
    I maintain, that if this was me, I wouldn’t want a copycat of AT&T Park. The reasons I don’t think “so what?” is acceptable… PNC doesn’t have a second PNC to compete with. Petco doesn’t have a second Petco to compete with. It’s really that simple… Two AT&T Parks in the same region is a drag on both AT&T Parks and boon for neither.
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_differentiation

  43. @ Tony D to bad I never stated Quan was the best or the city’s POL but remember this Brooklyn Basin was Oak to 9th proposed by Jerry Brown, and finally getting built because of investors brought in by Quan. So whatever your beef is by the way she has handled things like occupy Oakland or whatever you can’t dispute that she doesn’t have enough game or whatever you wanna call it that has brought millions into the city and a 1.5 billion dollar project that is starting soon. So based off that fact and call HT or CC city a pipe dream is pretty laughable when under her term so far actual money “hard cash” has been invested into the city. Jerry Brown… No, Ron Dellumes…. No, so on and so on, Jean Quan…Yes, so after all these years of real pipe drams that haven’t come to reality, Her track record over the last 2 years have proven otherwise. So SJ lawsuit seems more like a pie in the sky last chance if you ask me.

  44. Karim, nothing’s actually been committed to the project. Their “buy-in” so to speak is minimum at this point. That’s not to say it won’t happen, but it’s not happening tomorrow nor will it suddenly pop up overnight. No real “hard cash” has been spent yet. And keep in mind Jerry Brown WAS involved in bringing these people in along side her.

  45. @dmoas Brown was just there as a face to tout California as a great place to invest he had nothing to do with it. Its well reported that the investors were friend of Quan and her husband and they connected the developer’s to her investors friends. The following is from the press release. “Brown credited Oakland Mayor Jean Quan as being “instrumental” in connecting the China-based investor, Zarsion Holdings Group, with the Oakland-based developer of the property, Signature Development Group.” also the article below goes a little more in depth.

    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2013/12/13/massive-housing-development-in-oakland-put-on-fast-track

  46. @dmos as the article states it’s been fast tracked and construction is starting in March as all needed approvals have been approved, and with the rapid growth in Oakland they want to finish this ASAP. So to speak that it is a buy in is a understatement to say the least.

  47. That’s great that she connected investors with the project, but there’s also no reason to think that some alternative mayor couldn’t have done that as well. There’s no obvious value added by Quan. There has been a building boom recently in SF and other cities while there has been nothing in Oakland. That may be changing, but it’s not hard to imagine some other mayor getting more shovels in the ground and cranes in the sky, 2-3 years ago. It’s not hard to beat zero.

  48. Karim, stay tuned… Oak to 9th has been batted around and changed many times. That doesn’t mean they are going to build the whole thing as it devised now in our lifetime. One reason LGO is pushing a waterfront development is that the the Oak to 9th development won’t be completely built without some other stimulus in the area. That comes form the LGO economic impact analysis that you can download on the LGO website.
    .
    This is the problem with the East Bay media in this whole process. They have become cheerleaders more than reporters. Especially Robert Gammon and Steven Tavares.
    .
    I share both of those guys desire to see Brooklyn Basin built out and a vibrant thriving waterfront in Oakland. The difference between them and I is that I actually take a critical view of the situation. I can be objective about ti. They clearly can’t as they print glorified PR release after glorified PR release.
    .
    Demand will have to be present for the Brooklyn Basin project to be built out. As of now the first phase will break ground in March. After that, ti will depend on sales of the units to determine the pace at which the project is built.

  49. Jeff, problem is any waterfront park is going to be seen as a copy of PNC or Pac Bell and if they spin it the other way it’ll be seen as a copy of PETCO if it aims toward downtown. The A’s are nearly dead last in this most recent spate of stadium building. Anything they do is going to be seen as derivative to some extent. The benefit will be to hype it as the newest and best, particularly compared to what came before for A’s fans and people who’ve previously attended A’s games and were driven off by the decaying experience.

    It’s still a much safer route to go than the experimental route like Miami did and end up with an albatross on their hands.

  50. @Tim alternative Mayor… how many mayors do you want it was proposed damn near 10 years ago. Value…. Her and Husband were connected to this group personally so how is no credit there when time and time again she as been credited with this as far back as 2010 when she was Vice Mayor. and after reading this article seems like this and HT are connected. Note the end of it as she has been working on and HT since she was vice Mayor so where is the political benefit for her reelection grand scheme everyone says.

    http://oaklandnorth.net/2010/09/15/oak-to-9th-land-development-project-approved/

    @Jeffrey I do agree with you parts will be built and altered depending on the economy etc and the full project is no guarantee. Also you are right there are still many questions that need to be asked of Quan etc but from what I know etc they are and will keep these plans under wraps until needed. But that does not mean the questions should not be asked, even if they are sidestepped.

  51. It’s more important that they are answered… Howard Terminal is not a new possibility. Keeping things under wraps is ridiculous and sort of indefensible at this time.
    .
    Dan, we can disagree. It’s fine.

  52. @Karim,
    I think it’s awesome that Oakland is finally getting a piece of the Bay Area construction boom. But as has been reported recently in the media, the vast majority of commercial/real estate construction is occurring in SF, the Peninsula and South Bay/SJ. Now, all of this being said, can you please tell me what the heck this new construction in Oakland has to do with a new ballpark for our A’s?! (Hint: absolutely nothing!)

  53. @tonyd a peice the rest of the bay is so generous for oak getting a peice. The hint is not nothing, most pro sj people say where’s the money show me the money the investors are another pipe dream no one will invest in a project like this. Well here is a project like “this” that’s been invested into. Oakland can’t sustaine a project the owners need a return well here goes a project where condos etc are being built for the investors to see a return because the Oakland market is booming right now. So Lew can develop his condos, hotel, and retail with more than enough space than 12 small acres. That’s the connection you guys keep saying no but here’s a project that is beginning in Oakland that is saying yes it is sustainable

  54. yeah i don’t know why some a’s fans object to having elements of a at&t in the east bay. don’t the best parks take parts of other venues and put it in their own ballpark when they build it. not like at&t itself didn’t do this as didn’t they copy the left bleachers they saw at coors, even their guys admitted it.

    this howard terminal imo has little to no chance of happening but it’d take parts of at&t/pnc/gabp due the waterfront aspects and also a little bit of safeco with the whole train station alongside of it and you’d probably hear the train whistle thru out a game as the trains pass by.

  55. Damn, these renderings break my heart, it sure would be nice, and I like this location in some way better than the old up-town idea. It’s hard not to be skeptical, hell at this point I am a little skeptical of Dirdon happening (and Wolff wants to build their). It seems like we will always be in baseball purgatory

  56. Man I thought keeping the cranes was sweet; being that Oakland is a shipping town.

  57. @Karim,

    I could go on and on with you, but its obvious you are hard set on your world view re Oakland and Howard Terminal. After all, it’s your world and you could reside in it as you see fit. But reality: unless Oakland can come up with over $1 billion (cost to buy A’s, fund ballpark, fund site remediation, fund off-site infrastructure improvements), THIS AIN’T HAPPENING! BTW, and I’ll ask again…what happened to my Raiders and Coliseum City?

    FYI, if you’re not in the mood to be totally appalled, don’t read the medias take on this “new” Oakland development, i.e. Ballpark Digest. Outrageous! would be an understatement…

  58. @tonyd I don’t see how you and everyone by pass the information the little we have and go off 3 to 4 quotes from Lew wolf that has been said year after year that everyone keeps copying and pasting. From the get go of the cc and ht oak pols have said they are providing multiply sites for the A’s and since right now the Raiders are invested into the city they are priority to cc and they said it can and will be scaled down so it’s still built. And it was said the developers are interested in both areas if the A’s choose or want to look at HT. our raiders will be fine there is no worry there. And your where’s the 1 billion, trust me it’s there. Remember there are only 30 teams in MLB and it is a cashcow for owners, just ask Miami’s owner or Houston’s owner, Colorado, there all raking in the dough. Not comparing anything what so ever in regards to city’s but people didn’t think the dodgers would get sold for 2 billion dollars alone, and get a 7billion dollar tv deal after that. Fact is a group will spend 500+ mil for the A’s and the city will take care of them in regards to land infrastructure, and development for them as a thank you to them

  59. @Karim,
    Have a great evening :)

  60. @tony d @ml lol I’m very optimistic from what know and have learned/heard. If the city pols finally comes through for the fans of the A’s and raiders, first game at the new stadiums first round on you. If it’s SJ I got you guys.

  61. @PJK – No, SJ can leave the land as is, unused (still have the necessary EIR in place like they have been), but not actively solicit MLB to make a decision. This would break the cycle of procrastination and force people to realize that we have been living the status quo for the past 2 decades and that it isn’t acceptable. Once MLB realizes how futile the Oakland attempts have been, I think they’ll cower back to SJ….JMHO

  62. Since my chosen profession is in heavy construction, estimating, and cost analysis I thought I would give my two cents. The things that cost the most are what you can’t see, meaning everything underground. Why does it cost the most, because it takes alot of time, and everyone has their hands on it. PGE(gas,electric, high pressure),every wireless carrier, cable companies, You know what they all want? You to move it, and upgrade it while your at it. Then we get to contaminated soil. You have to remove it, and ship it somewhere that will take it. Then, on top of it you live in the most seismically active area around next to water. Foundation work is expensive, but when you add in seismic and water it grows exponessionaly. After all that you can start building a stadium. That’s before any business complains, Railroads want theirs, the environmental groups get something. All this makes my head spin, and I can see why even to get something like this off the ground will be unbelievably hard. I may do a cost analysis soon, just to get an idea of cost, but I am saying $650 mil before any costs for property. That doesn’t include any other neighbourhood infrastructure costs. About a ear ago I gave ML a cost analysis for a platform design in order to avoid hazardous cost, and I think that was $125 mil.

  63. @Anon, The fact that MLB had put the pressure on the Coliseum Authority to reluctantly agree to give the A’s a short two year lease renewal on relatively good terms was enough of a clue to me that the A’s ongoing ballpark issue will be resolved soon. We can also thank Mark Davis and the Raiders for giving the A’s a very big assist on this matter.

  64. ML, I’m asking just out of curiosity, not because I’m trying to mindlessly plug a site that’s gone entirely undiscussed. I was wondering if you knew whether the area in Uptown Oakland bounded by 27th, Harrison, 23rd, and Broadway was ever studied for a ballpark site. It seems to be mostly parking lots right now, and could probably fit a ballpark. Just wondering if it was ever discussed in the early and mid-2000s when Oakland was being seriously considered by the A’s and MLB.

  65. Andy Dolich calling HT a joke and equating Oakland’s strategy to a game of pick up sticks is telling. You don’t get much more pro- Oakland than this guy. So the SOS will now start bombarding him with hate mails and tweets. If BS only knew what a fool he is making himself out to be- what a way to go out-

  66. 500 million has been put out there for half a decade now. In what land do they live where costs don’t rise. Guess it’s easy to keep saying a number when there’s nothing actually behind that number.

  67. Wow. Unbelievable. Undeveloped land, a BART station two blocks away, in the heart of downtown….how has it flown so far under the radar?

  68. Oak fan, I can think of about 800 million reasons why…

  69. Good find Lev. Frankly I’m not surprised Coliseum city isn’t being dismissed out of hand anymore by Wolff. San Jose has obviously hit a very large speedbump and he had always said that he had no Plan B if SJ does ultimately fail. Coliseum City might just be a plan B he can work with. God knows it’s the path of least resistance in the Bay Area even if a less than ideal site.

  70. One of the regulatory plans that conflicts with Howard Terminal becoming a ballpark and or mixed use development is BCDC’s Seaport Plan that designates Howard Terminal to be “Port Priority Use”. The Seaport Plan gets its authority from both the state and federal government. Very difficult to amend. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/seaport/seaport.pdf

  71. Wow. That’s a major change of mind by Wolff. Let’s get it done.

  72. Bryan…did you read this post?

  73. i’ve read some a’s fans thinking that there would be “splash hits” into the estuary? sorry but that isn’t going to happen. how far would homeplate be away from the water? i’d guess 500 ft.

    looking at these pics it’d be further away than other waterfront parks ala at&t, great american, and pnc.

  74. ML: What are the details? The only thing I can think of is the real estate market is picking up again and maybe Wolff thinks he can make a go of it selling condos and hotels in the Coliseum parking lot – next to the ballpark.

  75. Wolff would go back to Fremont way before he would consider Coli City or the parking lot. Yeah, reward Quan and Co for all the bull shit/nonsense/insults they’ve uttered over the past few years by giving them what they want; not happening!

  76. @llpec – i hope you’re right. This whole ordeal is ripping apart the fan base and is getting out of hand….

  77. Anyone think Lew will give in to HT if the city pays infrastructure?

  78. The Coliseum City site has several obvious advantages – a built in existing infrastructure, no toxic cleanup and/or land disputes, as ML has suggested, it would provide its own security force (the Coliseum has proven to be a safer site than the SF parks, the ‘Stick and now phonebooth park anyways)it would a secure site, and would avoid using an already thin Oakland police force. The CC may be plan B for Wolff.

  79. I think Lew Wolff is playing up to Oakland as a way to light a fire under the San Jose horse, so that San Jose can get to the finish line. In other words, Wolff is beginning to indirectly put pressure on San Jose for them to find creative ways to assist the A’s in getting more public funding contributions for the ballpark project. Also, this opportunity for additional funding will make it easier for the A’s to meet MLB’s ballpark seating capacity requirements and other ballpark specifications. On the Oakland front, Wolff will give them enough rope so that they will actually disqualify themselves of any chance for a new A’s ballpark.

    • @llpec – San Jose pols can’t afford to do that. City has it’s own big mayoral race coming up with 5 current & 1 former council member running. If any of them pledges money now they’re putting themselves at great risk.

  80. llpec, more than likely Wolff doesn’t care where it’s built as long as the situation and the circumstances make fiscal sense for him and the team. The best place is probably still SJ, but that doesn’t mean a situation in Oakland couldn’t fit that bill. It’s less pushing SJ and more looking at Oakland and asking “What’s in it for me.”

  81. @dmoas, I think Wolff cares very much where his ballpark will be located. He has Mark Davis as an ally to tighten the time constraints to get something done. Lew Wolff is first and foremost a businessman, and he wants to build his ballpark at a venue where he feels the A’s will be the most financially successful within the Bay Area market. He certainly doesn’t think it’s fair to have his competitor dictate to him where he can, or cannot build his ballpark.

  82. llpec, like I said, the situation and the circumstances will dictate all of that. If MLB continues to balk at his offer for SJ and requires a big payout to the Giants to get it done, it may make SJ cost prohibitive. He cares only that he can be as profitable as possible. What he doesn’t care about is where within the bay area that place turns out to be. I wouldn’t give his latest words too much credibility, but it’s not out of reason that, depending on the situation and the circumstance, Oakland could be that place. It’s all about the numbers. And it will always be about the numbers. If he really cared about challenging the generally unfairness of the Giant’s hold on the South Bay, he’d have acted on that himself. He cares more about the bigger picture. And the bigger picture includes the value of his team and the overall strength of MLB’s economic structure that helps inflate it.

  83. By indicating interest in CC LW is only putting more pressure on OAkland to put up or shut up. Now they have to figure out how to build 2 stadiums in parallel while tearing down the Coli which still has $120M of debt. And for either the A’s or Raiders to invest they need some development rights that may impact the economics of the current developers. Oakland is the frog in boiling water- their not gong to know they are dead until its too late.

  84. By hypothetically building at the Coliseum parking lot Wolff would not only be giving in to Quan and Baer, he would be giving up on the corporate money and disposable income promised from Silicon Valley. Not only that, he would be letting down immensely supporters and those in his ownership group from San Jose/ SV. That’s why I feel Fremont, still in his current territory AND still Silicon Valley, will always be “plan B” over anything presented in Oakland. He would be crazy to think otherwise.

  85. I do not understand how the “outside investors” part of HT is supposed to work:

    1) the M&R article suggests that the return that the investors would get for their money ($200-$200 million?) would be a bunch of practically free land at HT, minus the ballpark footprint.

    1(a) is the land really worth that much (or more since they would presumably want to make a profit).
    .1(b) if the land really is worth that much, then:
    ..1(b)(i) is this a huge tax-payer giveaway to the investors by the citizens of Oakland?
    ..1(b)(ii) why wouldn’t the City just sell that super-expensive land and build or chip in on a new ballpark themselves?
    ..1(b)(iii)why not cut out the investors and give the land to Fisher/Wolff? If it’s economically feasible to build the park there with investors getting the land, it would be even more so with the land given to the A’s, cutting out the profit-seeking middle man.

    2) the investors’ part is to generate the money for toxic cleanup/added infrastructure to make the site viable. does that still leave the A’s with the full stadium debt (with the investors’ part just to generate the money to make the site in a clean and “build-able” state like the current Coliseum City site or SJ sites already are? If so, going back to the part above, why wouldn’t the City just sell the land for huge amounts of money and use that to basically build the A’s a ballpark at Coliseum City?

  86. @Tony D.
    As anyone that comments on here, or reads the comment section, would, know I am a pro-Oakland guy, but I do believe the Dirdon Site in San Jose is the best overall location for the A’s. I think anyone that’s been keeping up with ML’s blog and any real news about this situation, would have to come to that conclusion, for a variety of different reasons. These quotes from Wolff are a little surprising, not sure what’s up, perhaps the cost at Dirdon is simply too high, with the land cost, paying for the ballpark, with no space for ancillary development opportunities, the loss of revenue sharing (I have always believed Wolff will retain revenue sharing rights in any Oakland deal), and of course the king’s ransom that must be paid to the San Francisco Giants.
    You mentioned Fremont, and we both, along with others have maintained that Wolff would go back there if he did not get the ok for San Jose, and he still may, if it comes to that, but perhaps, he has become tired of the NIMBY groups, that he would encounter virtually anywhere, but the coliseum.
    If the A’s ever play at CC, it will be because it was truly the path of lest residence, with plenty of room for annually development, and not because it was the best location, in the Bay Area for them.
    That being said can we just get something built, in the Bay Area.

  87. I meant $200 million to $300 million in my comment above.

  88. Neil, you just mentioned part of why I think the Fremont ship has sailed even if San Jose falls through. Fremont NIMBY’ed Wolff out. He found the two prime locations, near the rail line and 880 at Pacific Commons and then near the new BART line and 680 in Warm Springs. Both came with baggage that seemed unwilling to budge in the form of the big box stores (and their veto power over any development at Pacific Commons) and the mass of NIMBY’s north and east of the Warm Spring site. That hasn’t changed in the intervening years from what we know. Nor should it in the latter case. Always thought Warm Springs was a poor location for the park in what amounted to a middle/upper middle class suburban bedroom community. It’s not a good location for a park and the NIMBY’s had every right to object (I probably would have in their shoes too). And as far as we know the Pacific Commons stores still haven’t changed their opinion on that site which is no doubt why Wolff is selling off the land rights.

    Are their other sites in Fremont, sure. But are any of them worth the trouble compared to Coliseum City IF Capitol and the city do the leg work and provide Wolff with a good return on investment? I’m not so sure anymore Coliseum City WITH the A’s participation has a chance of being worthwhile financially IF the promises Oakland is making can be kept. Those are of course very big IFs given Oakland’s track record. But at this point Coliseum City is looking like the path of least resistance for the A’s to get something done. Wolff might have something else in mind, God knows the man is pretty wily when it comes to land matters and the whole east bay would still be his oyster so to speak, but as of now there are no other alternatives on the table that make any sense if San Jose is really in trouble (and HT is a non-starter as it seems to be).

  89. @Dan
    Yeah, your right on the money , any time you’re doing such big projects like this, there are a lot of ifs, should of, could of, and back to the drawing boards, when you put Oakland in the mix, those IF’S become bigger and bigger.

  90. @Dan – The Pacific Commons NIMBYs could have been bought off. Their complaints were for games inconveniencing customers and cutting into their sales. The solution would have been money. On one hand, of course they’re gonna complain; there is a possible payout. On the other hand, it sure made for a convenient excuse to open up Santa Clara county (with a short stop on the other side of the freeway for good measure).

  91. It’s harder to leave than it is to stay.

  92. LS, it’s neither here nor there now since Wolff is selling the land. But if he had any interest in buying off the big box stores (assuming they could have been bought off), he could have done it 7 years ago. He chose not to or couldn’t. And to add to Fremont’s problems the city is now run by anti-ballpark ringleader Gus Morrison. Fremont isn’t a fallback plan at this point, it’s a non-plan.

  93. @Dan–Wolff didn’t endorse a future new ballpark at the Coliseum, only that he may consider a longer lease. While I have been an advocate for 980 Park, I can see the merits of the Coliseum, public land and site control. The problems are great–not a Downtown site, actually may harm Downtown Oakland, by creating a competitive commercial location and second it is located in a challenged neighborhood.

  94. @Bryan Grunwald
    Agree with most of what you said, but the part about a challenging neighborhood? We often say that, with regard about the area around the coliseum, and it’s true, but CC would not be in a naberhood, it would create a whole new naberhood between the sporting venues, and the Oakland airport. I don’t see its close range to east Oakland/industrial area, as being as big a problem as we usually believe it to be.

  95. Again, I just don’t see Wolff looking seriously at the Coli site, mainly due to all the garbage spewed from Quan and the Oakland-only over the years. Why would you want to reward them by giving them what they want? This would also be a major victory for the Giants, by thus keeping the A’s in Oakland and depressed market for the long haul (lack of corporate support). Angering his SJ base (supporters, fellow A’s owners, business partners) would be an understatement with such a move as well. Again, “plan b” most likely Fremont if no SJ, with him genuinely working with local retailers (big box stores) to minimize impacts. It would still be considered SV/SJ, be convenient to SV corporate base and ensures he doesn’t loose to Baer and Quan.

  96. Bryan, read it again…

    “Wolff told this newspaper, “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a place in Oakland where you could do something.”

    The most likely location, he said, “would be where we’re at right now. On land controlled by (the city and county).””

    That’s not talking about the current Coliseum or a longer lease. He’s talking about a new ballpark on the Coliseum site as being the most logical place to build in that city.

  97. Tony, you’re looking at this from a fans POV. Wolff isn’t going to turn down a site because it would “give Quan what she wants.” He’s a businessman, not a vindictive fan. If it makes financial sense to build at the Coliseum for him, he’ll do it. Quan “winning” or the Giants “winning” doesn’t play into the decision. Wolff isn’t competing against the Giants in the way you think he is. Remember he’s been playing by MLB’s rules from the start and even opposed the SJ lawsuit. He’s said from the start he’ll abide by whatever decision MLB makes. And both Fremont plans are dead. Pacific Commons is being sold by Wolff… which he wouldn’t be doing if it were his plan B.

    Bryan, regarding potential harm to downtown Oakland, do you honestly think Wolff or Colony care? If the city is dumb enough to create a second “downtown” to compete with their actual downtown the developers will take advantage of it. We’ve already seen the same thing happen in San Jose with Santana Row. And apparently Oakland is gung ho to follow since the city is pushing Coliseum City.

  98. He could be saying this, simply to get a longer lease at the coli (if raiders dont build on footprint), play nice with Oakland say you want to build so you get 3-5 more years, on top of the 2 you have, giving SJ the needed time to build? Who the hell knows?

  99. I dont think so, but like I said, who the hell knows? Can we get a ballpark please?

  100. True, realistically we have no clue why Wolff has expressed his first remotely positive views of an Oakland plan in a very long time. It could be a negotiation tactic as you say Neil, it could be that he actually is interested in exploring it as a Plan B, or it could be that San Jose’s plan is in some real distress. We just don’t know. But you can see why it is spiking interest and speculation, he’s always been “Oakland not viable, need San Jose” in part because Oakland not being viable is a big justification for him gaining SJ. It would seem to undermine that to some extent if suddenly Oakland might have something viable in his view.

  101. @Dan,
    I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. That is all..

  102. I haven’t been following this very closely so correct me if I’m wrong. (East Oakland native now in Phoenix.) This Howard Terminal site is perfect.

    1. Links Jack London Square with West Oakland which I understand has come a LONNNGGGG way from when I was growing up, driven largely by yuppies who have no other alternative since SF is too expensive. (it may be the “ghetto”, but it’s just 5 minutes from the Financial District!)

    2. Oakland West BART is a 20 minute walk from the site. I’ve walked farther to get to A’s and Giants games growing up. Houston Astros fans (well, the 5 or 6 who don’t drive) walk 20 minutes to get to the Main Street light rail from Minute Maid and think it’s cool.

    I can see sports bars and little shops opening up all along the way, which will be a natural extension of Jack London Square into West Oakland.

    (OMG people from Orinda, Danville and San Ramon hanging out in West Oakland????? Shocking!!! Unheard of!!! But if done right it CAN happen.)

    3. If people MUST ride something, have corporate-sponsored AC Transit shuttles from Oakland West and 12th Street stations.

    4. This will actually HELP current residents of West Oakland with economic development and jobs. But hopefully the yuppies who work in the “internet” companies in SF won’t drive them all out. Gentrification is a double-edged sword.

    5. This should have been done 20 years ago.

  103. BTW Dan, I do agree with one thing you stated: he is a businessman. And with that, he won’t give up on $an Jose or $ilicon Valley. Now…that is all ;)

  104. nothing will happen in Oakland til JQ and LW are on the same page. Unless BS forces the A’s to buy into the HT plan, it is a non starter for LW. Can JQ interpret the sign language ?

  105. Hay guys, I believe Dan is correct. I said last week (a thread or two ago), none of us should be talking in absolute terms, regarding the A’s situation, and on this one Lew has just proven me right, can any of us truly say we know how this is going to go? Strap in boys, and girls it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

  106. Wolff’s applying pressure on San Jose. That’s how I see it. You gotta focus on the process at hand and not try to grasp for conclusions every time a shred of news is released.

  107. Tony, he will give up on San Jose on one condition… if MLB denies it completely. Now whether they’ve done that we don’t know. But so far Wolff has shown no inclination to fight his old frat buddy for San Jose. That’s never been his MO. If he can’t have it, he’ll go somewhere else. But it won’t be Fremont. Not with no currently identified sites and a hostile city council.

  108. Briggs,
    I hope you’re right and this is just a small pressure application move toward San Jose as it is still the best place in the region to put the team. My only question would be, what kind of pressure is he trying to apply? San Jose has pretty much given him everything he wanted within reason. And not sure what else he could be trying to pressure SJ into doing that they haven’t already done.

  109. It’s interesting news, if only because Wolff making any sort of overture to the city of Oakland is interesting. Although this wasn’t a fully positive statement it’s not as absolute as his previous public stance(s). Although his previous stances include a downtown location as a must.

    Quan has been making some creative moves with respect to the Brooklyn Basin thing. And it seems that her main opposition is also in favor of a ballpark at Howard Terminal, so who knows

  110. @Briggs Again agee with Dan, if thats all he was doing, he undermined himself in the process, and while I agree with you, we tend to overreact off every little bit of news (because there is not much), I would not call what Lew said little news, he has said for years, there is nowhere in Oakland to build, thats part of the reasson he claims he needs SJ

  111. Maybe Wolff knows MLB wants taxpayer $ from San Jose and will not get it. So he’s looking at other options. If he can make it work in the Coliseum parking lot, its cause for celebration. We don’t want our team to leave the Bay Area and this solves that problem. But the dialogue has always been that he can’t make it work financially in Oakland.

  112. In the unlikely event that the A’s wind up staying in Oakland in a new ballpark, I would have to believe that the A’s would have to retain their small market status. A new Oakland ballpark will be really nice for A’s fans to finally enjoy the amenities and ballpark experience that a new facility will most certainly provide. However, it would not be able to generate the ballpark revenue streams that a facility closer to and more accessible to the region’s more affluent and corporate communities would provide. IMO,the division of the Bay Area market into two distinct unequal(population, wealth) territories was done by MLB to give the Giants a significant competitive advantage over the A’s. If the A’s are ultimately forced to stay within their designated territory, I would believe that they would have to be compensated by being allowed to continue on as revenue sharing recipients. On the other hand, If the A’s are ultimately allowed to move to San Jose, they would have to assume the risk of being on equal footing with the big market Giants. Ultimately, the big decision regarding the future home for the A’s comes down to what MLB finally decides. Hopefully, it will be coming soon. We are all tired of all this ongoing back and forth uncertainty.

  113. Agree with pjk. While I’d love for the A’s to move to San Jose and have a bright rosy future in the affluent southern financial power house of the Bay Area, I also wouldn’t be upset to see them stay in Oakland. It is the Oakland A’s after all that we became fans of. They’ve always done ok on field in Oakland and I see no reason that wouldn’t be able to continue (particularly if they remained on revenue sharing) provided any plan in Oakland makes financial sense for the owners. And either is a better choice than the alternative of leaving completely. Like IIpec I just want to see this mess finally come to an end one way or the other.

    Two decades is too long for something like this to hang over a team, their city and their fan base.

  114. @IIpec agree, that would be a must, if the A’s are confined to Oakland

  115. llpec–I don’t think the territorial division processes of the NL and AL were well publicized back in 1958 or 1968. In fact, the mlb constitution only became available publicly a few years ago due to litigation (that “discovery” problem everybody’s talking about now). And the most recent version of the constitution was still confidential until mlb produced it in the San Jose litigation this past summer, in connection with its motion to dismiss.

    But we do know that when the A’s took over Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in 68, there was nothing second-rate about that territory. And it appears that neither the A’s nor the Giants had any interest in the orchards of Santa Clara County, back then. (Hell, Fairchild had barely begun to pollute the local air with the acid fumes of rudimentary chip-making in 1968.) Even in 1989–in the pre-web world–when Giants owner Bob Lurie asked for the right to annex SSCo to the Giants territory, Wally Haas didn’t care.

    So it’s unlikely that the current territorial unbalance was the product of some sort of corporate slight by mlb.

  116. @xoot :

    it is why I believe if LW challenges the agreement Haas gave to Lurie, he might win.

  117. @llpec – there is no way the A’s will remain a “small market” team with a new ballpark, whether in SJ, Oakland, or anywhere. The present CBA even states so (by noting that the A’s will end their welfare with a no ballpark), indicating that MLB views the Bay Area as one large “shared” (even though it isn’t) big market. I think that if MLB overturns this stipulation, the chances of staying in Oakland increases significantly, but all the other owners would be kind of pissed since they are essentially subsidizing the A’s and their new stadium.

  118. If the A’s need a subsidy in a new Oakland ballpark but wouldn’t in a new San Jose ballpark, and the owners refuse to let them move to San Jose, then whose fault is it if the A’s still need a subsidy in their new ballpark?

  119. Man, I’m just glad all of us are spouting opinion, because what some of you are saying would be downright depressing it it were fact. Wolff abandon SJ/SV for the Coli parking lot?! Time for some new news…

  120. @Anon I here you but if the other owners, would be so pissed, at the A’s in Oakland on revenue sharing, why won’t they man up to the SF Giants, and tell them sorry, we got to give the SJ. You could be right, but I think, it really does not matter what the current CBA says, everything is negotiable, and Lew will get it stipulated in any deal he has to do, that involves the A’s being restricted to their own current territory
    If the A’s don’t qualify as a revenue receiver, while confined, to Oakland, and the restrictions on San Jose are such that they lose that right, most pay the Giants, pay for the land, and build the park, all on their own, well it’s out of the Bay Area for our team, game over Giants win.

  121. @daniel–I’m not real pleased with the tactics either franchise has deployed in the past 6 years or so, but I do think the Giants owners have a colorable argument that they bought the team in 92 assuming they could develop corporate and fan support in SCCo, and then, relying on the assigned territories, they did just that, and very well. As a result, SSCo is no longer a negligible mlb asset.

  122. @Tony D.
    I don’t think he has a banded, the idea of Derdon, but we need to face the reality, of what if he does not get San Jose, we all know (should), if her does not get it, it’s a good chance they are out of here, so no harm in trying to figure what to do if not, Oakland, or Fremont

  123. xoot, do you honestly think things would be any different today had they not had those T-Rights in regards to how they handled working the south bay? The only thing those rights gave them was exclusivity of physical stadium location, not the ability to market there. And like any good business person, they bought those rights knowing that they weren’t set in stone, that they could lose them under certain circumstances.

  124. Tony, it wouldn’t be “Wolff abandon SJ/SV for the Coli parking lot” it would Wolff denied SJ/SV or Wolff unable to make SJ/SV work. He may not have much choice in the matter. Not unless he suddenly starts channeling Al Davis which doesn’t seem likely given his past actions and statements. If MLB tells Wolff no to San Jose or even to the long pursued plan at Diridon Wolff may not have any choice but to explore alternatives be it the Coliseum Parking Lot or some other city.

  125. @LSNeil – It goes back to my previous post about the stadium debt that would incur. I think there is sufficient (3/4) support for the A’s to move to SJ, but the way the deal as proposed now (A’s paying for everything), it is being balked by MLB themselves and not the owners. Remember, even if you were granted to move, you actually have to have a solid place to move to! This could be why there has been so many misleading news about the A’s getting the OK to SJ, but at the same time getting shot down in their “proposal”….

  126. It’s a beautiful rendering. I like it more than the Sj Ballpark. But the thing that bothers me is the fact that this site is in the middle of nowhere…For years I have lurked on this site, and never quite put together where Howard Terminal is, and lived in Oakland for most of my life. I used to go to the park over there for my lunch break.

    Definitely inaccessible by foot, matter fact most people who live in that area never go over there, or even know it exist. There is nothing in the immediate area, it definitely feels like the heavy industrial area that it is. IMO It would need major development even beyond site preparation.

  127. @ML
    Well man, you know how it is, we have so little news, to analyze in the first place (when it comes to this subject)…

  128. @xoot,

    Dmoas said it best: the Giants didn’t (or don’t) need the territorial rights to develop corporate and fan support 50 miles from their ballpark. The only thing those stupid rights do (currently) is ban San Jose from obtaining the A’s; that’s it! And FWIW, the Yankees, Mets, White Sox, Cubs, Dodgers and Angels due just fine developing corporate and fan support IN SHARED TERRITORIES!

    You’re right RM, we are analyzing this crap way to much. I’m sure there’s reasoning for Wolff’s choice quotes in the media, which none of have absolutely no idea of. The man is smart when it comes to business and has way to many connections down here to give up on SJ, give in to Quan/Baer now. Looking forward to your next thread..

  129. @xoot, You’re always looking at the Giants through rose colored glasses.

    @Lakeshore/Neil, I give you credit, even before I did, for bringing up the issue for the necessity of the A’s to continue receiving revenue sharing, if they do stay in Oakland. We did not open up a can of worms. This so called “territorial rights” issue as they relate to shared two team MLB markets is unprecedented, expect for the Bay Area. I’m sure the lawyers representing San Jose have the historic facts and documentation to take these issues all the way to the SCOTUS, if need be.

  130. Guys, this will all be over in a few hours when I win the mega millions and buy out the giants.

  131. @IIpecThanks . @ Larry E Love you, for that one man. I hope you win.

  132. Wow. The TRs to SCCo circa 1992 ensured that the new owners of the Giants could revisit a SCCo ballpark, as an option; but, more important, it also ensured that the A’s couldn’t. So wherever the Giants built a new park between San Jose and SF, they could market SV biz and fans knowing that a nice new Giants park would be more accessible to SV companies and people than would be any A’s park. (I know the A’s tried to solve that problem by snuggling up close to SV with the Fremont deal, but I also know about traffic and transit around those mudflats.) So post-92 the Giants developed their marketing, etc., accordingly.

  133. @xoot,
    Respectfully, your last comment made no sense whatsoever. A cocktail of Giant talking points and marketing gibberish (the Giants have a Dugout Store in Walnut Creek; is WC In Giants territory?)
    @Larry E.,
    If you win could you pay off my mortgage ;)

  134. Rich Lieberman is tweeting that he is about to break a new story about a new BIG$$$$$ potential ownership group for the A’s. One name he’s dropped is Reggie Jackson who in a previous attempt to buy the A’s admitted his goal was to move them to Las Vegas.

    BTW, reading his tweets from the last couple hours make me think this guy likes to tweet while inebriated.

  135. @plrraz the article was taken out if context, he was gonna buy the expos and expressed intrest in moving them to lv as they needed to be moved from Montreal anyway. They attributed that to the A’s situation when he was trying to buy them which was not true as he and other members of his group were ready to build a basball only park in Oakland. Here’s the quote.
    In attempting to buy the A’s, Jackson had a plan to move the team to Las Vegas. In fact, DuPuy said, Jackson asked him about acquiring the Expos if they were going to be moved to Las Vegas or Washington. As u can see the first part is from the writer and the second is the quote he’s trying to link the two together

  136. Hey Leiberman, we’ll just have to break an old story right here at New ballpark: THE A’S AREN’T FOR SALE! Talk about taking the wind completely out of his sails.
    @Dan, makes no sense whatsoever IMHO re SJ and the Lil Giants…NONE! The MLB parent club is (supposedly) playing hard ball with the city re an A’s move so you…extend the lease for their Lil club, allow them to sell naming rights to Lil yard AND give Ok to on site development? WTF?!! If I didn’t know any better I’d assume this was all part of some deal to eventually get the A’s to town. Yet we’re also now talking about a potential long term future for the A’s at the Coli? Damn this drama sucks to high heaven!

  137. @karim,
    Who cares what that traitor Jackson (Yankees Hall of Famer anyone?) wanted to do or wants to do with the A’s! It’s completely irrelevant because he doesn’t own the team and they are NOT for sale.

  138. @tony d just clarifying the facts and I’m right there with ya if there is a group I don’t want no part of him, cocky, stuck up ass. Bad for business on all parts.

  139. Tony, I hate to even suggest it, but SJ signing a long term lease with the Little Giants (with some pretty heavy concessions about long term capital improvements to Muni Stadium), Wolff showing interest in Coliseum City (a first in Oakland in over half a decade in a position that on the surface would seem to undermine his desired move to SJ), the reports the SJ plan as it existed is dead (and there not being much SJ can do to sweeten that pot)…

    Sure doesn’t look like it’s adding up to that happy Silicon Valley future people like you and I wanted.

  140. @Dan,
    Just stop will yah. If we were really going to be screwed by MLB and the Giants I say no way in hell we do anything for their little club. SINGLE #%&@! A BASEBALL FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! They don’t do shit for the nations 10th largest city; let them rot (or move) for all I care! You know, the more I think about it and calm down, the more confident I feel that no way in hell is Wolff going to abandon his business partners, civic friends and fellow A’s owners from San Jose/SV (i.e. DiNapoli Family) in order to placate Baer and Quan. Gotta keep fighting! And I’m sure Wolff and SJ will. Tired, until the next thread…

  141. @tony–Those yellow and green glasses don’t permit much sight. Someone in San Jose bought tonight’s winning $636M lottery ticket–according to a headline I saw. There’s your investor. Get that San Jose person–obviously an A’s fan, per force, right?–to buy a managing share of the team and start fighting mlb like a real tough guy should.

  142. Let’s Go Oakland

  143. @xoot That was pertty funny, it was about time, you got in a good one. (-:

  144. Wolff could be using the CC as plan B. As an earlier ML story mentioned, Quan’s plan (with the A’s ballpark as stage 3 of the CC plan)gives the A’s a perfect opportunity to do so, this gives the A’s extra time to see what develops with the SJ vs MLB lawsuit, or an MLB deal with the A’s and San Jose.

  145. @Tony D. come on man, none of us know anything, hell it could still be in SJ, we are all just reading the tealeavs.

  146. @Karim I here you, my man.

  147. I see the whole CC release as just one more move in the chess game. By public ally stating CC is viable LW has now challenged Oakland to show him what they got. The same Oakland that is trying to show mark Davis what it has. LW just put a stake in the ground that said whatever you give to the Raiders you had better give to us also. Oakland can’t afford 1 stadium much less a stadium and ballpark at the same time. Recall A’s are phase III of CC and Kaplan climbed that by 2020 they should have their act together to get serious about a new ballpark for the A’s. guess what- time to deliver now. S let’s assume the impossible and they actually deliver $300M or so of public money to the A’s. LW would take it and run. He would retain small market status (territory is not equally shared) and have a new ballpark. At that point put the team up for sale- get max return on his investment and wash his hands at that point. A’s fans will have to accept the small market status.

  148. @Lakeshore/Neil San Jose doesn’t need a $363 mil. lottery winner to fight MLB – the Cotchett law firm appears to be doing an excellent job doing that already – Selig is likely privately very p.o’ed concerning the SJ vs MLB lawsuit.

  149. @ duffer Yeah, I just thought what xoot said was funny, thats all @GoA’s Not that CC will happen, but if so, I am not sure Oakland will need, that much. If they really plan to give the land away, or sale at little cost, thats a lot of acures, that would make up for a lot of money.

  150. @LSN- lots of acres in a less than desirable area of town. But you are right- public money can come in the form of new taxes or land/development rights- interesting to see how this affects any discussions with Malik and Colony who are there to subsidize a raiders stadium by Oakland giving them land. Quite possible with LW throwing his hat in the ring and wanting a piece of the pie that there may not be enough to go around for both stadiums-

  151. @goA’s there’s more than plenty they have over 800 acres of land. Everyone will be more than satisfied that investment group wouldn’t come close to touching all of that land

  152. @karim- nice to see you back supporting CC- guess HT was just brief euphoria- we will see on whether or not it pencils out- was already on shaky ground and now you have a 2nd developer saying he might be interested in playing. Control is a key word- and all 3 parties are going to want lots of control

  153. @GoA’s lol thanks, naw I believe from the very get go I stated that they are toting both sites as being able to work to satisfy MLB, its never been one or the other. And yes I agree with you splitting up pieces of land seems like a given but greed always finds its way to the table.

  154. FWIW, if Lew finds a way to get it done in Oakland – and I’m still skeptical that this can happen – it could mean a big time damages payment by MLB to San Jose. Everybody wins – We keep our team in the Bay Area, San Jose gets a chunk of money, Selig looks like the big zero that he is.

  155. Putting aside the funding issues, Is there enough room at the Coliseum site(parking lots) to construct both one NFL football stadium and one MLB ballpark concurrently, without disturbing the existing Coliseum structure? I believe that it was done in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati before their respective old multipurpose stadiums were replaced.

    • @llpec – There is, but it’s not space efficient. The Coliseum is almost 1000′ in diameter. Coliseum City renderings show a much tighter plaza, which makes it look like the football stadium would overlap the existing southern third of the current Coliseum footprint.

  156. Having driven right by the Philly site last year, I can verify there is an arena, football stadium and baseball stadium on the same site right outside the downtown. But it would have been better to put the arena and ballpark right in the downtown.

  157. @IIpec
    That’s a good question, It’s one thing to say the project is 800 acres, but considering where each t team would like to build (if the A’s and Raiders want to), could be a potential problem, and don’t forget it’s not like they would be taking down the arena either, so is there enough room to build two new venues, while two old venues remain standing?, I would say probable not, but I don’t know much about such things, if it can be done, they would defiantly need to stager the start dates on each new venue, but I am sure that’s something Lew was thinking , when he made the statements.

  158. I would agree with Xoot if the Giants were able to blackout the A’s in San Jose, similar to the Kings/Warriors.

    The Giants would have exclusive marketing rights and in that case it would make sense this whole T-rights argument.

    On the other hand, the A’s could blackout the Giants in the East Bay and ban all marketing in that area. (I.E. Giants dugout store in Walnut Creek).

    Why is this not the case?

    Because it comes back to restraint of trade and anti-trust issues. For the Giants to block the A’s into San Jose is flat out wrong and does not hold water in any other professional sport league or any business in general for that matter.

    Hence San Jose will prevail in the higher courts as MLB ATE is outdated from an era that was so long ago “rule of reason” has to apply.

    As for Howard Terminal, where did Knauss get this 500M dollar figure from? If it was that cheap and do able then I say lets get on it and make it happen.

    If MLB allows the A’s to stay on revenue sharing with a HT ballpark then have Oakland pay the cleanup and infrastructure. Lets assume that is 200M. (ML has 177.5 from the 2001 HOK study), while the A’s pay for the stadium itself privately.

    This works if MLB allows the A’s to stay on revenue sharing.

    I for one believe if HT was feasible and Giants saw it would sell San Jose in a heartbeat as a HT ballpark would be so close to ATT Park and with a good team the A’s could take major market share from the Giants being so close to each other.

    The Giants know the A’s are stuck with zero options, if Wolff could produce something in Oakland it would force the Giants to negotiate SJ. Why negotiate SJ when the Giants know full well there is no where to go in the East Bay? Choke them out and make them leave.

    MLB knows this too but yet does nothing, I still firmly believe a new younger commissioner or the lawsuit is the only way for the A’s to stay in the Bay Area.

  159. Also, I forgot to mention in the 1990s Magowan was negotiating with Steve Schott the Santa Clara site the 49ers are currently building on.

    The Giants saw the A’s were going to renovate the Coliseum for baseball only and did not want the A’s with a better ballpark so close to them. The Giants were still rotting at Candlestick with no end in sight.

    The moment the Raiders came back and ruined the Coliseum Magowan stalled negotiations with Schott and then it was a few months later they got funding to build Pac Bell Park and broke off talks completely.

    This supports my argument if there was another option in the East Bay it would force the Giants to deal SJ as a new Oakland ballpark hurts them more as in the case of Magowan-Schott all those years ago.

  160. ML, LSN, Thanks! This just seems to add to the complications to what at first would seem to be the easiest of stadium venue options.

  161. @Sid: [citation needed]

  162. @sid- I agree with your statement that if Oakland could produce something that is really viable we would most likely see a speedy resolution to TR…says a lot about what LW is doing right now with comments about the Coli. My guess still is that TR issue will be ironed out before any decision is made on where to build a ballpark. When this is ironed out both the A’s and gints will be part of a large shared market and pay into the welfare system rather than take from it. Tow ways the A’s are trying to drive this- thru the SJ lawsuit and now advocating that there is a possible site in Oakland. While AT&T is beautiful it will be nearly 25 years old before the A’s have any hope of opening a new ballpark- and the last thing the gints want is anew ballpark within spitting distance of their own-

  163. The SJ deal is dead. The Giants would be crazy to relinquish the territorial rights to the area…. MLB has no interest in being there. They said as as much earlier this year (thus the law suit the city filed against MLB) With our US economy in a shambles and MLB expansion taking up all of he “economically viable” spots(most of which are failing)THERE IS NO PLACE LEFT TO GO!! Lou Wolf and is gang of bully’s are screwed. They need to get on board with his deal or risk loosing this team all together. I guarantee you MLB is looking at all of this closely.
    I would prefer MLB stepping in and forcing the sale of the team to the guys from Clorox and Dryers at least then they wouldn’t thumb there noses at the fans. I had a brief conversation with Mr Wolf in the parking lot two years ago I asked him if he could keep the A’s in Oakland and he turned his back on me, as he was walking away he said “I wish I could.” I didn’t believe it for one second. Thank god for Billy Bean keeping us competitive and in the spot light.

  164. Nick, MLB only said no to Wolff’s current deal for SJ, not the city itself. And more importantly, MLB can’t force him to sell.

  165. @dmoas,
    Don’t feed these first time trolls who don’t know what they’re talking about. The man can’t even spell Lew Wolff’s name right for crying out loud. Let them spout whatever nonsense they want to get off their chest and simply carry on..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s