This time, as promised, I present the photo overviews for:

• Laney College Athletic Fields – Not feasible nor under consideration due to Peralta Community College District’s desired land uses.
• Howard Terminal – Unlikely because of long-term lease with major shipping company Matson.
• Uptown – Small sliver of hope for a ballpark that requires much political work done over the last three years to be undone, and new political support to be lined up behind it.

Other notes:

• The East Bay Business Times put out an editorial in this week’s issue that does not support large-scale public financing of a ballpark. It steps back slightly on its position towards the end, urging Oakland and Alameda County political leaders to “weigh the economic benefits of the stadium as an investment.”
• On the sidebar to the right, I’ve added a new feature called The Scorecard. It’s there to keep track of how different media outlets (TV, radio, print) and personalities (columnists, talk show hosts) are positioned on the ballpark issue. For now, it will show indicators for two specific public financing questions, though it is likely to expand. If you see, hear, or read anything that can help fill in the Scorecard, please send it in.

For those that want a non-propagandistic view of the economic impact of sports venues, take a look at Robin Pogrebin’s May 7th article from the Arts & Design section of the NY Times. Several individuals from both sides of the divide were interviewed, including Jay Cross, who headed the Air Canada Centre and American Airlines Arena projects. He is currently working on the mammoth Jets stadium project on the West Side of Manhattan. Some interesting (and relatively refreshing) quotes from Cross:

Cross… cautioned that a stadium could not shoulder the entire burden of reviving a neighborhood. “One building can’t do it on its own,” he said.

-and-

The stadium’s impact, he added, would take time to determine.

“You’ve got to give it 20 years,” he said. “You’ve got to be patient. They can help neighborhoods,” he said of stadiums, “but they’re not instant panaceas. They will neither repel housing or attract it. There still needs to be a bona fide reason to build housing or commercial space as part of a well-thought-through package, because it’s largely market driven.”

“Times Square had all the good will to clean it up,” he continued. “But it needed developers to make commitments.”

Keep in mind that the Jets stadium is a multi-use facility which will also function as an extension of the Javits Convention Center, as well as a centerpiece should New York win the 2012 Olympics. Without those, the stadium would have only 8-10 automatically scheduled dates per year in the form of football games. A ballpark would schedule over 10 times that number – 81 games or more. However, even that expanded schedule has holes: 3 months of games spread out over a 6 month span, and what happens during the offseason? Without some guarantee of traffic during that down period in the fall and winter, developers will be hesitant to make commitments.

Courtesy CBS-5 (KPIX)/Bay City News Wire:

Today’s news tidbit comes from a recently constructed watchdog group from San José called Ballpark Tax Watchdogs. The group filed a rebuttal to San José City Attorney Richard Doyle’s April 22 memorandum, which advised the city and the Redevelopment Agency on how it could proceed to acquire the individual parcels that make up the Diridon South site. The controversy revolves around whether or not the purchase of the Diridon South lots and related expenditures, when used for the eventual construction of a sports facility, requires a referendum.

Doyle’s opinion is that the purchase of the land and related costs such as feasibility studies are not subject to a vote. Only actual construction costs, when financed by public means (bonds/taxes), are subject to a vote.

BTW believes that any costs, including site acquisition and exploratory expenditures, do require a referendum.

Who’s right? Take a look at San Jose’s Municipal Code Section 4.95.010:

4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility

The city of San José may participate in the building of a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the city of San José approving such expenditure.

A “sports facility” for the purpose of this chapter is to be any structure designed to seat more than five thousand people at any one time for the purpose of viewing a sporting or recreational event.

“Tax dollars” for the purposes of this chapter include, without limitation, any commitment to fund wholly or in part said facility with general fund monies, redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by city property, taxing authority or revenues.

Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the city from allowing the construction of a sports facility funded by private investment.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this chapter and application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Where one stands on this issue is largely dependent on how one views sports facilities projects and similar redevelopment work in general. In the end, it appears that this ordinance, enacted in 1988, may have been specifically worded (notice the use of the word “building”) to allow for planning-related work to occur. The real question here is, “Will the ballpark opponents take this to the next level?” That level, of course, is court. The last line of BTW’s home page indicates this threat is possible. Whether or not they follow through on it remains to be seen.

Note: The BTW domain was registered only 2 days ago (5/2), and the rebuttal was submitted on 4/30.

Eric Lai wrote a good summary of the development climate in Oakland with regard to the ballpark situation. He contacted me last week, and while I didn’t get back to him in time to be quoted, I did respond in time to give the paper permission to use my Coliseum South mockup on the front page. He interviewed Zennie Abraham of Sports Business Simulations, who is the first person I’ve seen actually discuss the use of redevelopment money (tax increment funds) to finance a ballpark at some length. That’s important, because I think there’s a misconception that an A’s ballpark will be financed the same way that SBC Park was. The chances of that happening are not good. It’s best to get the public educated as early as possible about the financial ramifications and costs. Proponents should start early to educate voters on how such a deal would be different from the Raiders’ deal, and that kind of outreach could make a difference. At the same time, I will scrutinize such a deal myself to see if it is truly fair for the public. No polls have been taken of the populace, but I would speculate if one were taken now, poll results would be similar to those in the Twin Cities, where the majority of the public is currently against public financing of a ballpark. It would then fall on ballpark proponents to turn that number around in time for a June/November 2006 election.