This morning I’m at Peralta Elementary School for the community meeting. Jane Brunner is running the show. Here’s a pic of the nice turnout so far. Brunner is explaining how as much of a fan she is, the real reason she supports an A’s stadium is economic development.
Nina from KQED arrived to grab audio of the event, some of which was cut into Cy Musiker’s interview with Neil DeMause today (5/3).
A KCBS reporter is on hand. Don’t see other media. Brunner is explaining recent history, including a brief admission that “we’re partly at fault.” Now she’s talking about the MLB panel. The reason why there isn’t a decision is because of the expanded search to include Fremont and San Jose. If they choose Oakland, that’s when the negotiations will start. She hands over to Eric Angstadt, deputy director of CEDA.
Angstadt further explains the process, including the description of a “matrix” of information required by MLB. (Reminds me of the RFP process.)
Now Angstadt is going into the three JLS sites. Howard Terminal is the biggest, it would require a pedestrian overcrossing (see?). JLS West would be difficult to put together. Victory Court has some city-owned land, and from a development perspective is considered a “hole in the donut.” the study of these sites is important with or without a ballpark. Infrastructure would be required as part of a broader development plan.
Brunner introduces Doug Boxer, who will go over the Let’s Go Oakland economic study. He urges for the community to “continue to challenge us” on the ballpark and other matters in order to get all issues discussed. One of the reasons he’s done this is to “correct the record” regarding the city. He advertises the Facebook group. Makes a connection between the number of members in the grow and the projected size of the stadium.
Boxer emphasizes that the study done by GG+A is very conservative. Also pumps up the economic development angle, just as Brunner did. Cites the $4.7 billion in increased property values, and $930 million in increased property tax revenues as a result. (Important to note that most if not all of the area under discussion is in some kind of redevelopment district.)
He compares JLS to LoDo in Denver. Mentions the guy who was kicked out of a game for carrying an anti-ownership sign.
Brunner: We want Lew Wolff to come to the table, whether MLB decides on Oakland or Fremont/SJ don’t work out. We want to keep a cordial relationship with ownership.
Public comments begin. So far there are no negative comments, though one commenter has rightly asked what the strategy is if the A’s leave. Lots of passion from the commenters, all fans.
One bit of concern: the presenters only lightly went over costs. It’s easy to be for this when there’s no price tag attached for the land acquisition and infrastructure costs. It appears that the stance is that such details will only be discussed or explored if MLB chooses Oakland. Considering what has been made public for the other two cities, that’s at best a double-edged sword.
Just as I was finishing that last paragraph a commenter asks the right questions about costs.
Another asks if the city can make small improvements to make the Coliseum better for fans, such as a TV in Stomper Fun Zone so parents can check the game.
Lots of blame going towards ownership. The requisite Major League reference.
Bobby “510” makes an interesting observation (paraphrasing): I grew up on the streets of Oakland. Me and my friends didn’t get into drugs or gangs because of the A’s. If the effort isn’t spent to keep the A’s, be prepare to spend a lot more on police since the kids will have one less outlet.
About the last paragraph: what the city and Let’s Go Oakland need are more events like this, more town hall situations. I mentioned before how much of a learning experience the health care debate was, when President Obama really started to hit the personal anecdote strategy hard. This is obviously not as broad an issue, but it is probably Oakland’s best strategy right now.
Public comments over. Boxer has the mic again, mentions us and is emphatic in saying that there is a plan. He also mentions San Jose’s referendum requirement, says that Oakland doesn’t need one – though there could be a legal challenge (we know how that goes in Oakland). Angstadt says that all city staff have been asked to be circumspect, not go on the attack.
Angstadt talks money, especially redevelopment. Explains that redevelopment is the core tenet. Difference between this and Raiders deal is the use of redevelopment money, not general obligation bonds. Stadium is a catalyst.
Brunner clarifies, “We don’t have a secret plan. We have the three sites, the Coliseum is out.” Affirms that there are no details because there are no negotiations. We need a willing owner and we’re not going to do this through the papers. Doesn’t want to get into a bidding war with the other cities. If Oakland gets the nod, this will be done through the City Council. This is a business retention deal just like any other. Mentions a certain blogger and his Q&A (coming soon!). Also says that there will have to be an education on the difference between general fund and redevelopment money.
That’s all folks! I’m getting a beer. BTW, while there was plenty of criticism of Lew Wolff, it was quite civil and yes, circumspect.
P.S. englishmajor from AN was on hand to capture all the audio, though I don’t know how much will be used. We spoke briefly when the session wrapped up. I also finally met LeAndre when he approached me as I was just about to drive away. He was a bit pessimistic about the session, though I said that Oakland should be prepared just in case SJ falls through. We both agreed that the city should just pick Victory Court and prep a bid in advance. We also agreed that there’s a decent chance that the MLB panel may not render a recommendation/decision until after the season ends, which is also around the time of the planned SJ ballot initiative. I ended our nice chat with the observation that this may be the only bidding war in which all three bidders are behind the proverbial 8-ball.
newballpark.org 