Port of Oakland tables motion to reject 3 maritime proposals at Howard Terminal

Following a staff recommendation made last week, the Port of Oakland’s Board tabled a motion to reject three proposals for maritime use at Howard Terminal. The motion will be considered at the next Board session in two weeks. Located just west of Jack London Square, Howard Terminal has been touted as the latest great ballpark site by many Oakland boosters and city officials because of its waterfront locale and proximity to downtown Oakland.

One bid from Bowie Resources involved the shipping of coal or other to the Port, which I noted in December. That bid was rejected due to the use not being green enough as the offloading and storage of coal would release pollutants in the air, hurting Oakland’s air quality. The bid also would have built storage domes up to 150 feet high. Coal storage domes are probably not the kind of visual icon Oakland wants along its waterfront. The CCIG bid faced a staff rejection because it was considered incomplete, whereas the bid from Schnitzer Steel was similarly not considered because it only used a small piece of HT land. Representatives from Bowie were on hand to press their case that staff had not thoroughly vetted their bid. This may be a case of delaying the inevitable, since the prospect of bringing coal to Oakland’s waterfront is likely to bring out the full force of the Sierra Club, not to mention enormous amounts of CEQA red tape.

The Port had no choice but to pursue maritime uses in the wake of SSA Terminals vacating Howard Terminal and consolidating operations at Berths 60-63 in Middle Harbor. That’s because the BCDC’s Seaport Plan considers HT as part of its “Port Priority Plan,” meaning that any designated maritime (shipping, cargo) use lands should be kept that way unless additional capacity can be found elsewhere to make up for it. With Howard Terminal, the idea is that SSA’s (and Matson’s) consolidation should be able to make up for any lost capacity from converting HT. From the report:

Using Howard Terminal for non-maritime uses conflicts with this designation, and de-designation of lands from Port Priority Use requires a Seaport Plan amendment, which is a fairly lengthy and involved process. To pursue an amendment, the Port would be required to provide evidence that sufficient capacity exists within the remaining Port seaport properties, or elsewhere within the Bay Area Port priority lands, to support the long term maritime growth demands for the region. BCDC would then independently analyze that information before proceeding with an amendment.

Such a move has a major precedent in San Francisco, where huge swaths of waterfront along The Embarcadero were converted to commercial use after Loma Prieta, along with the teardown of the Embarcadero Freeway. That conversion allowed Oakland and Richmond to take up much of SF’s cargo shipping capacity. Note that there’s no mention in the report or agenda item of HT being used for anything other than maritime uses in the report, even a ballpark. But that’s how ballpark boosters see the plan progressing, with the hope of the BCDC’s blessing. OWB, the group offering to negotiate a lease for a ballpark and additional development at HT, can’t negotiate anything with the Port until the maritime use question is resolved. Even then, other agencies could easily gum up the works, as the Warriors are seeing with their SF arena project.

Additionally, the State Lands Commission could get involved because much of the waterfront part of HT (including a wharf in the southeast corner) is Tidelands Trust land, which also requires discussion and perhaps even legislation.

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.

Sketches of a ballpark at HT show the stadium recessed from the water’s edge, perhaps enough to avoid SLC jurisdiction. Even then, it’s a gray area due to maritime use. It’s not as if Oakland needs another marina or ferry terminal, since such facilities are already adjacent to HT at Jack London Square.

The rejection was considered to be a fairly quick rubber stamp of ballpark boosters’ plans, which are supported by Oakland Mayor Jean Quan. Port Commissioner Bryan Parker voted to table the motion, a move that looks funny since he’s running for mayor against Quan yet supports a waterfront ballpark. That puts him in the odd position of needing to show due diligence, while trying not looking overtly political in the process. This may end up being a mere footnote in the history of a Howard Terminal ballpark (whether it happens or not), but it goes to show that when it comes to getting something built in the Bay Area, nothing is ever as easy as it seems.

47 thoughts on “Port of Oakland tables motion to reject 3 maritime proposals at Howard Terminal

  1. I do get sick of this green state California. ..yet nobody can explain why we are in this lack of rain issue. Anyway port jobs are important to Oakland which made Oakland an attractive city (when done right)

    Howard Terminal would be a great for a basketball or baseball venue but Wolff/Fisher dont like it…again its Coliseum City field or sell to someone who will or move out the bay area and let the SF giants rule. It sucks but that is the reality. Lets talk about the engineering and architecture of the new ballpark in Oakland then all this legal stuff….

  2. Optimistically, How long will it take to get HT even shovel ready to build a ballpark at that site? Where do the A’s relocate to, if they are forced to vacate the Coliseum as a result of a new Raiders stadium being built at CC? We haven’t even gotten to the unanswered questions as to all the costs involved, and who will pay for all of it? I do know that if MLB allows the HT plan to string along indefinitely, the Giants should be in a win-win situations. The A’s could wind up as long-term tenants of the Giants at AT&T Park. This arrangement could be very lucrative for the Giants, and for that conveniently put aside the territorial issue. Better yet for the Giants, the A’s could eventually get fed up and decide to sell to out of town buyers. One way or another, IMO, I do not see a HT ballpark ever getting built. There are just too many obstacles in the way.

  3. I don’t see it, either. ilpec.

  4. @harry/IIpec
    I agree with aspects of what both of you said, I sure hope the A’s don’t leave the Bay Area, but the reality of the situation is each day this drags on, weather San Jose or Oakland is a day closer, that another community will come up with the plan that will blow MLB out of the water.
    This is a long drown out process, it could take anywhere between 5-8 years if we’re lucky to get HT, to the point where we could build something on it, that’s if we even can build something on it, and that’s if Lew Wolff can be convinced to build something on it, and even if all that were true, we have no idea how it all gets paid for.
    In the unlikely event that Wolff would be willing to cover building cost, as he is in San Jose that still leaves, what most people estimate to be about 200 million in infrastructure and clean-up costs, Oakland does not have that kind of money for the project, and while they may get some help from Sacramento, there is no way they get that much, I would think.
    Some of the politicians in Oakland including the Mayor, as well some of the potential investors in the OWB group, have continued to make the clam that MLB wants a water front ballpark, and that they apparently prefer this site over any other potential site in Oakland, or perhaps the entire Bay Area.
    Well I don’t know how true that is, but I sure hope it is because I can’t see any other logical reason to put the time, money (however little to this point), political capital, or any other resource behind this effort.
    When I think of San Jose’s lawsuit, which could drag on for years, although it has the potential to come to an abrupt halt at any time, but the likelihood is, that it would take years to resolve, I can only come to the conclusion, that other than the slight possibility of coliseum city, we very well could be looking at another decade, if anything gets built in the Bay Area at all.

  5. re: that another community will come up with the plan that will blow MLB out of the water.

    …correct. San Jose has an ideal downtown site in a major city with an EIR done, but will not pay for the ballpark, while Oakland only has the undesirable Coliseum parking lot site and the unfeasible, Fantasyland HT site, and Oakland, too, will not pay for the ballpark. Meanwhile, MLB got Washington DC to pay the costs of its new Nationals ballpark and has Cobb County chomping at the bit to build a ballpark for the Braves. I don’t think MLB will accept one standard for DC and Cobb County (“Just tell us what you want, MLB, and it’s all yours”) and another for the Bay Area (“No taxpayer $$ for billionaires! Build your own ballpark!”) It will wait for a city willing to follow the Cobb County-DC blueprint rather than hold out for the Bay Area plan.

  6. Keep in mind guys…gints goal is A’s out of bay area—you can bet that any plan to copy their ballpark within eye sight across the bay is not going to happen–if you think that their efforts to block SJ have been ridiculous just imagine if anyone seriously tried to build HT. gints are directly related to at least 2 of the recent suits against mlb–they had to pay more than $500k to settle a suit that they didn’t pay their workers minimimum wage—one of their ex-minor leaguers is one of 3 plantiff’s in the minor league pay scale issue and they are the root cause for the SJ anti-trust suit—wtf–talk about a cheap organization only interested in maximizing their own profit—at the expense of their business partners-seriously…

  7. The Giants can’t challenge Howard Terminal for the same reasons they can try to block Diridon.

  8. GoA’s: You have to understand: Giants principal owner Charles Johnson is only worth $5.6 billion. He’s struggling to make ends meet, don’t you see that?…Yes, if HT ever got momentum (I don’t think it ever will) might we see a mysteriously deep-pocketed “Stand for Oakland’s Ports” so-called “citizens group” miraculously appear to oppose the plan, with lawyers on retainer?

  9. @Nathan–they may not have AT but any development on the waterfront will come under intense scrutiny from a multitude of stakeholders—ever hear of Stand for SJ–a gints fronted organization to block the SJ ballpark based upon the EIR–

  10. Nathan: HT presents a veritable goldmine of environmental and regulatory hurdles to throw in the way for anyone who decided to challenge it – no territorial rights nonsense necessary, thank you….

  11. @ pjk

    You bring up some good points, especially about DC-Cobb County. It’s a trend.

  12. GoAs/Pjk/Ivan
    All of you are right on the money ( tax money that is), also GoA’s you could not be more correct, then you are.
    The San Francisco Giants don’t want the A’s in the San Francisco Bay Area, here we are like a bunch of school children scabbing over the merits of San Jose, or Oakland continuity comparing and analyzing the two, when the only reason the Giants claim they support the A’s building in their own territory is because (God forbid the Giants would have to choose), they don’t want to give up the more economically desirable South Bay, it was the Giants that helped table that vote on A’s potential ownership group in the 90’s, that looked at building in Oakland favorably, that’s not to say they would have accomplished it, but the Giants help to make sure it never got to that point.
    The Giants don’t want the A’s in Oakland or San Jose, at the moment they are playing the “anomy of my anomy, is my fried”, game in the end they will cut Oakland’s throat to get the A’s out of the Bay, and I would say they are doing a party damn good job of it.

  13. Sorry: Squabbling like school children.

  14. @lakeshore
    what’s great about 2014 is that we will find out thr first domino of the 3 sports teams in Oakland. If Raiders reach a deal with the “private investors” this year then yes the A’s will be homeless and that will get MLB to finally decide whether to let the SF giants have the bay area or let the A’s build privately in Oakland or San Jose. Las Vegas most likely will be a temp home like it was in the 1990′s. I dont see why ppl keep bringing up the SF A’s….

    As far as the port goes …let the city and port owners battle it out. Because even tho Howard Terminal would not be good for baseball it probably is better for basketball and I think Oakland pols and citizens will actually contribute to make that happen.

  15. re: it was the Giants that helped table that vote on A’s potential ownership group in the 90’s, that looked at building in Oakland favorably,

    …Not sure you have this right, Lakeshore. Why would the Giants block this ownership group and then let deep-pockets Fischer and Wolff get the team? Despite what some people want to believe, Wolff did try to get something done in the current territory – first at a spot near the existing Coliseum site and then in Fremont. Wasn’t that ownership group you’re referring to underfunded and placing deadlines on MLB, making it mighty easy for MLB to dismiss the group? Not defending the Giants here – they know full well the obstacles anyone faces in trying to get a ballpark built in the A’s current territory.

  16. @pjk
    I here you (pjk) and I believe your correct, they were underfunded, as well and the Giants opposition may not have even been needed, but it was reported at the time they opposed it, regardless of the underfunding.
    Regarding Lew Wolff efforts to build in the A’s current territory, I agree with you when it comes to Fremont (and the Giants were not happy about that), I believe he gave it all he had, but between the area residence opposition , and what I believe was a green light given to him from Bud (before he threw him under the bus), to try San Jose, I believe we would be looking at the San Jose A’s of Fremont, or the Silicon Valley A’s of Fremont, by now, however you and I don’t agree on Lew Wolff efforts in Oakland, yes he made them sure, he had to try to show MLB he made every effort, before they would give him San Jose, so he tried, were that effort at the coliseum for real? I don’t think so, and I know you do, which is cool. Like I said last week we agree on 95% of this stuff, and I am not saying Oakland even deserves a real effort, when it comes to the A’s but I don’t think Wolf has given one yet. The Giants could not block every ownership group; if they could I believe the would have.
    @harry
    I here you the first domino is about to fall, if Lew was ever serious about the coliseum as (pjk), and others think he was, then in spite of what challenges lay a head it should not be too difficult to work something with the Raiders and Bay IG, if it’s true that it was a real effort in the first place.
    Regardless of what some people fill the coliseum is still the path of lest resistance, and remains the only realistic option in the Bay Area at the moment, I know many don’t want to believe this, because they reasonable see San Jose as the best option for the team (witch I would agree with), or either they don’t want to see it in Oakland, it’s too bad, because at this very moment the most undesirable place(in many people eyes), East Oakland at the coliseum, is the only remote possibility we have, at the moment it may change but at this moment, it’s all we have, who would have thought that?

  17. Does anyone have more information on the proposal by Bowie Resources? Or a link to the actual proposal itself? I’ve been digging online to find out more and turned up very little beyond passing mentions.

  18. @LSN–thing about CC and Bay IG and the A’s–Bay IG involvement is a complicating factor for the A’s. They are a developer that is focused on maximzing their return—LW is a developer who needs development rights/cheap land somewhere in Oakland to offset his investment–he isn’t cash poor like the Raiders are. Neither the A’s or Bay IG will be willing to give anything for free—question that ML has properly raised previously is whether or not there is enough development rights/potential available to support $1.5B of stadium costs–I don’t think so–given that the Raiders are cash poor they need Bay IG alot more than the A’s do–which I believe is still going to be a stretch to make it pencil out–

  19. @lakeshore
    correct that is why pro Oakland ppl continue to point to the Coliseum parking lot. ..a lot less red tape and hassle. Also if Oakland wants to make a second Downtown or at least another neighborhood. Having expensive or at least middle class housing on both sides of 880 can be a great development spot for the Coliseum City investors. ..but being totally real…Coliseum city is basically for the Raiders/Investors and whatever they can fill in the rest. Oracle will be around but the A’s most likely are phased out.

  20. @ ml, pjk and tony d
    One more note im sure ml will touch on this.
    if Raiders and private investors dont come to agreement on a new stadium then we have to see if Mark Davis will call his bluff and quickly move to Santa Clara or L.A which will be the first sign if Oakland sports will be doomed (imagine the headlines) on one note the A’s will have the Coliseum to themselves and some Oakland pols will tell them to “build a new ballpark lew, since the Raiders are gone”…lew might consider it because of the extra land (if Oakland gives him a huge chunk of Coliseum land) but he would have to agree to it. Or lew could be like nnnaaa im cool and eventually sell. So the Raiders leaving or staying choice will be coming up and will effect all parties

  21. @GoAs I here you, it wont be easy, I am saying if Wolff wanted to build at the Coli as much, as some say he did it can be worked out. There is not enough land 800 acers?, They can only build so much on the same site? Some people just dont want it at the Coli, so they will come up with every reason it cant be done there. I beleive at this moment the only open and reasonable place is CC, and if Wolff wanted to build there (as some claim) as much as he did when he put forth this so called effort several years ago at the Coli it could be worked out. I think if Wolff ever wanted to build there it would have been done, or well into the process by this time.

  22. You mean if Wolff were willing to take a notsogreat ROI or even lose money, he’d already have built at the Coliseum. Yes, we know that. Let’s see what Oakland has to offer him at the Coliseum site now. So far, it hasn’t been enough to sway him.

  23. @Pjk
    Can’t have it both ways, You say on one hand Wolff tried in Oakland, and its often brought up on this blog of the Oakland Only folks, they say “Wolff lied he never tried”, I believe you have even brought them up, but your making my point for me when you say it does not make economic sense for Wolff to build at the Coliseum.

  24. @harry/pjk/Tony D.
    Ok let me take a look at this.
    San Jose, at Dirdon is imposable because of the Giants territorial rights, ML B refusal, the San Jose lawsuit (BTW I wonder what the reaction would be if Oakland had a lawsuit vs. MLB, that’s ok I think we know), and the fact that San Jose voters will not pass a tax increases for a ballpark, especially after they were thinking they would get one for free. Tax money may be a bigger issue at this sight, because Wolff would need something to offset pay out to the Giants.
    Oakland, at H.T. is imposable because the infrastructure and clean up by itself could be 200 million dollars, not to mention the time frame it would take 8-10 years who knows, besides that even if MLB likes the site the A’s don’t, there is the tax question here as well, there are just too many hurdles
    Fremont anywhere is imposable because Lew Wolff sold the land that he once owned there, the countless number of NIMBY groups that would spring up at any mention of the A’s building there, as well as no present available site.
    Oakland, at C. C. is impossible because even if Wolff wanted to build there (Gasp), there is not enough room, for both the A’s and the Raiders to develop? 800 acres not enough, that’s interesting I recall the augment some time ago being C.C. would not work, because they would not have enough dates? And that innless the A’s, and or the Warriors came aboard it would not work, but today it will only work for one or the other, but not both. It’s also been said that it’s not that there is not enough room, but that you can’t duplicate redevelopment ideas, for example the Raiders or Bay IG can’t build a hotel, while the A’s build a hotel at the same location overbuild, and we will call it. I am sure they could come up with some different redevelopment possibility, they are developers.
    I am not saying it will be easy, it may not be possible as so many suggest, but at this moment, of all the impossibility’s in the Bay Area C.C., is the one that may actually have the best chance to work, I know that’s not what many want to here, but it may be C.C. or pack your sh*t for the A’s (Portland or San Antonio Athletics).
    I am honestly cool with the A’s being in San Jose, I think that’s the best place in the Bay for them, and I hope it happens if it can’t be in Oakland, but I here over and over, that the Oakland only folks would rather the A’s be out of the Bay Area then them play in San Jose, and I am sure that’s true for some, but it goes both ways and there are people, I believe that would rather see the A’s play in San Jose, or leave the Bay Area, rather than play in Oakland.

  25. re: that would rather see the A’s play in San Jose, or leave the Bay Area, rather than play in Oakland.

    …Not anyone who’s already been following the team.

  26. “there are people, I believe that would rather see the A’s play in San Jose, or leave the Bay Area, rather than play in Oakland.

    @Lakeshore/Neil, You are extremely passionate about keeping the A’s within the Bay Area, but I think you get caught up in your enthusiasm and don’t really believe in your above statement. I don’t believe there are many, including all those on this blog who are in the pro San Jose camp like myself, who believe that they would rather see the A’s move to another market rather than have the team remain in Oakland. Most certainly, we would not be A’s fans in the first place, if we had an anti-Oakland bias. We just believe, and you do too, that San Jose may be the most viable Bay Area location for the A’s to operate most successfully.

  27. I think most folks here forget that Uncle Lew bought the A’s knowing full well that he did not have authorization to move his team to SJ. He even stated at the time that he had no interest in this area. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Selig for this mess. Most MLB owners don’t throw up their hands and act like victims like our proud owner does repeatedly.

  28. Solution:

    Lew Wolff should buy the Raiders.

  29. IIpec, I agree. I’ve never seen any San Jose booster say they’d rather the team leave the Bay Area than stay in Oakland. We’re all fans of the Oakland A’s after all. If it’s worked for 40+ years I’m sure we’ll all go right on letting it work if Oakland miraculously does something.

    However I have heard MANY in the Oakland only camp say that they’d rather the team leave than end up in San Jose.

  30. Glenn D: So MLB has spent 5 years proving Lew wrong, showing that there are viable sites in Oakland and $$ to pay for a ballpark there, correct? Which site has MLB named and what’s the financing plan for an Oakland ballpark? What’s that – MLB has not found a site nor a way to pay for an Oakland ballpark? You don’t say?… Of course, that mean ‘ol Lew Wolff already has rejected overtures from Portland, Sacramento and maybe other places to move the team. He’s kept the team in the Bay Area when other owners already would have moved it. What a meanie…

  31. @IIpec
    Thank you I am passionate about keeping the A’s, in the Bay Area, and I guess any of us can get caught up in the enthusiasm, and perhaps I overstated a bit , but the reality of the situation at this moment, in my opinion C.C., remains the only open, viable and remotely possible option for the A’s in the Bay Area (I hope that changes), because it would be better for the A’s economically, as an organization if they got San Jose, but unlike some I can live with it if they don’t.
    @ Glenn D
    Your right on the money, most of what we here is about Oakland supports or politicians crying (not that it not true), Lew Wolff does a hell of a lot of crying, for a man that purchased a team, and knew full well what the understanding was when he punched them.
    @Dan
    Doesn’t have to be said, it’s certainly implied at times.
    Pjk
    There certainly will be no viable sites if you don’t want to find them. I fill for Lew he was not done right, but stop acting like he is an incent victim, if he can’t find a way to make it work at CC, and he does not get San Jose, he and Fisher will sell probably sale to out of town interest and make hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, for a ball club they invested vary little into.

  32. “I think most folks here forget that Uncle Lew bought the A’s knowing full well that he did not have authorization to move his team to SJ.”

    Uncle Lew only owns the team because Selig made his ownership stake possible. And if Wolff looking away from Oakland is so problematic for MLB, why then did Selig send Wolff a letter in Dec of 2008 telling him to begin looking at ballpark possibilities and open discussions with cities and other than Oakland?

    Selig gets a bad wrap? Please…

  33. Lakeshore: MLB has spent 5 years looking for anything Wolff might have overlooked in the A’s current territory. It hasn’t found anything. End of story. The Blue Ribbon Committee looked at the current territory and, obviously not finding anything to its liking, ended up looking at San Jose – a definite expansion of the committee’s mission to look within the A’s current territory. The committee’s findings have never been made public but they are obvious: No sites, no $$ in the A’s current territory.

  34. Selig coaxed his friend Wolff into the lodge because he thought if anyone could get a ballpark done in the current territory, it was Wolff, right? Wolff’s conclusion: Not doable. Bud’s committee’s findings: Never revealed because they concurred with Wolff…Now, Wolff says they could do “something” at the current site. What does that mean? We don’t know. Trying to pressure San Jose to up the ante? Trying to pressure Oakland to chip in Big $$ and MLB to keep the A’s on revenue-sharing? Who knows?…Actually, the 2008 letter instructed Wolff to begin looking at other cities if Fremont wasn’t moving things along. Wolff already had written off Oakland and Selig, by virtue of his appearance at the 2006 press conference announcing the Fremont ballpark project, obviously concurred with Wolff at the time.

  35. what most likely works for LW at CC doesn’t include the Raiders and without Bay IG—recall he has refused to meet with Bay IG and said he will only meet with the JPA—

    harry–if your so certain a deal will happen between the Raiders and Oakland then why is Larry Reid pushing for the JPA to accept a new 10 year lease with Oakland–that implies the Raiders won’t get what they want which is a stadium where the existing one sits…

  36. Pjk When I said there is no viable sits, if you don’t want to find them, I was not simply referring to Wolff, I was referring to MLB as well viability, when it comes to Oakland at least at C.C., is come down to what your motive is, and as you like to say end of story (I guess it’s the end because you say it is.)
    Wolff: there are no viable sites in Oakland; therefore I must have San Jose
    MLB: there are no viable sites in Oakland; therefore we must move the team out of state (to the municipality that offers 350 million first)
    @GoAs
    Good point.

  37. Wolff: There are no viable sites in the A’s current territory (this was after Fremont collapsed). Bud’s committee was charged with exploring ballpark opportunities in that territory. The committee obviously didn’t find any, did it, since we’re no closer to a new A’s ballpark now than we were then, and the committee quickly expanded its reach to look at San Jose – which obviously is NOT in the A’s current territory. Why bother looking at San Jose if viable options can be found in the A’s current territory? Well, because the committee couldn’t find any…And yes, the A’s might rot at the Coliseum until Portland, San Antonio, etc, start bidding on the team with public money.

  38. @Glenn D.,

    ..And then Selig gave Wolff the personal OK to explore San Jose! That (as Rayburn put it) was the game changer and the day baseball changed in the Bay Area. Whatever Wolff knew at the time he bought the team is now completely irrelevant. Besides, San Jose should never have been banned from obtaining a MLB team in the first place, especially with the territorial rights existing ONLY so that the Giants could relocate to SJ themselves. Any questions smart guy?

  39. @Lakeshore/Neil, While I commend you for being one of the few in the pro-Oakland camp who has openly accepted the idea of a possible move of the A’s to San Jose, I do think you have become too dismissive of the fact that it could happen. You seem to put too much credibility to the power of the Giants to be able to block any potentiality for an A’s move to San Jose. MLB would be embarrassed if one of its oldest franchises became homeless, especially if pushed out indirectly by the NFL. Also, the MLB Lodge would throw the Giants under the bus, if they thought the Giants’ selfishness was somehow putting MLB’s ATE in jeopardy. AT this time, an A’s move to San Jose appears to be the most viable option, if the A’s are to remain in the Bay Area. Unless Oakland opens up its purse-strings for a new A’s ballpark, and MLB allows the A’s to continue receiving revenue sharing, I don’t think even CC would be a viable option. As for HT, I think it’s not a realistic option.

  40. Fellas fellas 2014 we will have all our answers met.

    Raiders stay because Coliseum City investors team up with him to build stadium. If Raiders leave because investors dont make a deal amd Oakland does offer public funding then I beileve raiders will get to L.A before Rams do and city of Oakland and lew wolff A’s will be in awkward position.

  41. @IIpec
    Actually I am not dismissive of that possibility at all, in some ways I almost would like the A’s to be homeless, so it would force MLB’s hand in the situation, it’s almost as if MLB needs such a drastic situation to allow the A’s to have San Jose.
    What I am is a little miffed at what I see as a dismissive attitude by some commenters toward Oakland, but it’s not like I won’t get over that.

  42. @LSN- I think your wish might come true sooner than later- I feel the 10 year lease request is one additional pressure to make Oakland decide between the A’s and Raiders- it’s a game of chess and Oakland will end up being a pawn in all of this- I’m not predicting SJ gets gets the A’s- but I would guess by end of 2014 we will know that Oakland won’t have the A’s-

  43. The length of the mass delusion, even for politicians, is taking on astonishing levels. Sure, enormous piles of money are needed to make the site shovel ready. Sure, there is a very unlikely chance for any public funds towards ballpark construction. Sure, there is a very real lack of historical data to suggest the new HT park could provide a positive ROI. Sure, with past being prologue, getting all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed within the land of the Oakland pols is going to be incredibly, mind numbingly daunting.

    BS/the BRC has done its job. LW needs to jump all over HT. His, and our, new ballpark prayers have been answered. Sure…..

  44. @TW,

    Excellent! Could not have said it better myself. Perhaps the movement of coal isn’t such a bad idea for Howard Terminal…
    (Makes Victory Court look easy in terms of making a ballpark happen)

  45. “(Makes Victory Court look easy in terms of making a ballpark happen)”

    I always viewed Victory Court as the most ideal venue for an A’s new ballpark within Oakland. Unfortunately, it was dismissed way too quickly for consideration as a possible ballpark site. Yes, I understand that land acquisition would have been very expensive. However, it most likely would be a lot less costly than the costs associated with getting the HT area suitable for a ballpark. Most certainly, Victory Court would take many years less to get the ballpark site shovel ready as compared to HT. I believe the land value at Victory Court has potentially much greater value for other uses other than for a ballpark(condominiums and other high end housing). IMO, that is the chief reason why the current VC land ownership speculators were reluctant to sell their property for ballpark usage. Maybe, if Victory Court would have been given more consideration, land acquisition persistence could have gotten the job done. Unfortunately, it looks like we will never know.

  46. Passing by the Coliseum this weekend and I wondered if Lew Wolff really wanted to build a ballpark at the Coliseum land…how much room would he need for construction? ?? Judging by the length from san leandro st. Along down 66th..a Coliseum City ballpark would take up all the parking lot where the Warriors fans park and I wonder would it be a issue with the team? Maybe Oakland expects everybody to play nice in such a wide yet cramped space…..o well I guess that is for the builders to decide.

  47. Pingback: At Howard Terminal, now the fun begins | Keep the Raiders in OaklandKeep the Raiders in Oakland

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