The Trib’s Angela Woodall observed the proceedings today. The result? 3-1 in favor of a full EIR study. As expected, the lone dissenter on the committee was Ignacio De La Fuente. The issue will appear before the Oakland City Council next Tuesday, where it should pass. The one important detail:
In the end, the committee added a provision that allows the city to cancel the contract with LSA Associates and pay only for work that has been finished.
That’s a good safety mechanism to put in place, just in case.
newballpark.org 
“MLB has shown it is interested, she added. “We need to stay interested also.””
More reason for me to HATE Ignacio De La Fuente…
@david – unfortunately, it should read: ““LEW WOLF has shown he is interested”
@LeAndre – love him or hate him, he is a realist which Oakland needs a healthy dose of: “The only one spending any money is the city,” De La Fuente said. Someone needs needs to reminds the kool-aid drinkers of this fact going forward.
I love water but was is so significant of having a ballpark on the waterfront? As an Oakland resident, I think it is just another attempt by Oakland to be a wannabe San Francisco. Oakland is different than SF, let’s embrace our difference and do something different. Do something creative! The 980 Stadium proposal to say the least. It would show the world that Oakland is creative and has an independent vision rather than being an SF copycat!
Ethan, I couldn’t agree more. The idea that Victory Court is “waterfront” in the same vein as AT&T Park or PNC is pretty ridiculous. Uptown was the spot for Oakland.
Ethan’s comment from the other thread:
So that’s what it comes down to. Because they waited so long to declare the site, there is no time to consider alternatives. No transparency throughout the process. That’s how you rig a game.
ML / Jeffrey – how long will it take to complete a VC EIR? I’m curious about Kernighan’s announcement that MLB had chosen VC without any official proclamation. Even if the EIR fails, no one has come forth for funding for VC besides some outrageous assertion of MLB support, plus new owners, and Cisco somehow changing its mind in Oakland. I. JUST. WANT. THIS. TO. GET. OVER. WITH. PERIOD! No more stalling, please!
@ST – Their timeline is 12-15 months. My guess is 18 due to the objections that will surely come up. It’ll take 3 months or more to get the draft.
@Ethan–your directing your anger towards MLB when it is Oakland that suggested the four sites knowing full well which one was ultimately going to go forward—all MLB said is of the sites you gave us this one could house a ballpark–never mind if it makes economic sense–that is not up to MLB to make those decisions for Oakland—that is up to Oakland leaders and hopefully its citizens who at some point gotta question, like IDLF did, what the heck they are thinking.
Oakland government and most significantly the city council it a reactive entity. They don’t do anything till the 11th hour on any form of policy. Don’t get me started on other issues besides the A’s and their stadium. Anyway the four sites Oakland presented were puzzling to me in the first place. Howard Terminal? Displacing Matson, one of the biggest employers in the port? Seriously not a good idea. Both Jack London sites including Victory Court ? If you drive around both spots, you will see all the businesses you have to displace. Looking back the Coliseum proposals made the most sense.
I am not angry but more frustrated with Oakland’s decision makers. And when people ask the Oakland’s decision makers to look at alternatives, then Oakland representatives say MLB wants a waterfront site, MLB wants this, ans MLB wants that. Typical Oakland leadership.
Lots of typos on my previous post. I think you get what is my problem with Oakland’s leadership. I live and work in Oakland. It is not all that bad.
What may have finally pushed Oakland to do something is the realization that in order to keep the Raiders the A’s need to go somewhere else. Plus, it’s now been 15 years since “Mt Davis” began construction and the more time passes the more people’s memories fade.
And as far as we know, the “Blue Ribbon Panel” may have very well given it’s decision to give Oakland another shot. Everyone seems to think that there has to be a public announcement, forgetting that MLB can do whatever it wants.
Ethan, shouldn’t Oaklanders be relieved that MLB is keeping Oakland in the picture at all, considering that many look at SJ as the “richer” city? Oakland’s chances seemed dead for a long time, and now the city gov’t is doing something.
I’m also starting to wonder if the Giants desire to keep San Jose has less to do with future revenues than it does with the overall value of the franchise. And a Giants franchise that has sole custody of Santa Clara County is worth significantly more than if it’s shared.
Nothing to wonder about, Georob. That is exactly the case – the Giants franchise value remains high by MLB giving them the power to exclude the South Bay from ever having major league baseball. Neukom has demonstrated his selfishness over and over again. But with San Jose still enthralled with the Giants and ignoring the A’s, he can get away with it.
Does San Jose even want the A’s? I haven’t seen enough evidence that it does.
@Georob- what your overlooking once again is MLB may give Oakland another shot but doesn’t mean LW has to—the BRC decision is ultimately can he move to SJ–if that is a no than he is limited by his current territory….and if he doesn’t want to build in Oakland because it doesn’t make business sense no one can make him do it—
relative to the gints motives–it is one thing and one thing only–get the A’s out of the bay area and make it a single team market–BN knows full well that your not going to find anyone who is willing to privately finance a ballpark in Oakland—as one of Oaklands council members said last night why waste a single dollar on this “pie in the sky” project (and that wasn’t ILDF who voted against it)—LW will have the leverage to demand a damn good deal in Oakland and more than likely at some point Oakland will realize it can’t pay and then BN might realize his ultimate objective–which when the A’s leave town–will significantly increase his teams market value
Looking way way down the road to say, 2040, the Giants can go to Frisco and say “build us a new stadium with public funds or we’ll build one ourselves in San Jose.”
@pjk–your comments about SJ wanting the A’s are beginning a bit overstated–75 of the biggest Silicon Valley companies are on record requesting that MLB allow the A’s to move to San Jose. The city continues to prepare the site and put itself in a position to buy the remaining parcels with the sale of other downtown property to developers yesterday for $31M. They have held community forums for this project for near 2 years and have a vision that will be presented to the city council after the new year. The polls show that the proposed measure would pass by an overwhelming margin….what more do you want them to do? Bottom line the BRC doesn’t want to issue a decision that keeps the A’s out of SJ—this very well might trigger a challenge to baseball anti-trust—-so MLB has got itself between a rock and a hardspace—but quit dumping on SJ–they are ready—
Well, these companies may want them. But at last week’s Christmas parade I watched as two A’s stars and the A’s mascot were ignored by the crowd, which was instead thrilled by the Giants. If San Jose wanted the A’s, the crowd should have showered the Giants with boos. Didn’t come close to happening.
FWIW, if MLB continues through this month to maintain the status quo on this mess, then I would expect San Jose to start pondering litigation against all involved.Let some judge decide whether MLB has the power to lock out San Jose or not.
@pjk–wow–you take what happened with a parade as to how a city will support a team…sorry—in 2 team markets they share the territory and fans–no different than Chicago and NY—if you expect all gint fans living in SJ to suddenly become A’s only fans than you will be disappointed–but as polls have shown there are as many A’s fans in SJ as there are gint fans—and therefore gint fans will show up to holiday parade that features their team that just won a WS—
@pjk–your last post is very interesting. That would really piss off the Budster.
@pjk : That’s crazy talk. Think about it.
@ML–the “waiting” tracking is great—good idea!
Briggs: If MLB refuses to overturn the territorial rights nonsense and San Jose wants the A’s, what other options does it have other than to drag everyone into court and let a judge decide? San Jose has a workable, profitable solution for the A’s but MLB instead prefers to try to shoehorn in an unworkable, doomed-to-fail non-solution in Oakland.
OT R.M.,
Could the city of SJ use the $31 million from the sale of Brandenburgh/SP towards acquiring the final parcels at Diridon?
MLB can always guarantee the Giants franchise value ala the Expos/Orioles deal or make SCCo a shared territory, in which the Giants wouldn’t loose any supposed value of territory.
Also, there are many A’s fans in the South Bay, and Southern Alameda for that matter, who didn’t attend SJ Xmas Parade; enough with that nonsense!
GoAs: If San Jose was gung ho for the A’s, then supporters should have showed up in droves at the parade. Instead, Giants supporters showed up in droves. I actually felt embarrassed cheering on the A’s under those circumstances and somebody nearby noted I was the only one doing it. Sound like a place that’s thirsting for A’s baseball?
So, I hope San Jose sues to get the A’s, but I still wonder if San Jose even wants them.
@pjk–sorry–dont follow nor agree with your logic—so lets just agree to disagree–
FWIW, supporters of bringing back NHL hockey to Quebec City recently traveled all the way to Long Island, NY to watch an Isles-Thrashers game (the two franchises most likely to move). Now THAT is a show of support. In San Jose, people couldn’t be bothered to travel a couple miles to downtown San Jose to show their support for A’s baseball. Maybe because there just isn’t a high level of support. (Instead, people cheered on the franchise that wants to forever deny MLB to San Jose)
@pjk- If the A’s won the World Series and sent players to San Jose’s downtown parade people would be cheering them too and ignoring the Giants.
The Giants won for the first time ever in the Bay Area, people in the East Bay are celebrating too not just San Jose. I work in Dublin and I saw so many people wearing Giants gear it was amazing during the playoffs….Last I checked isn’t Dublin in the A’s territory?
I do agree with you on the lawsuit San Jose must file against MLB. They need to do it or the Giants will do what you said in 2040 and demand SF give them something new or they will build privately in San Jose.
That is a big reason why the Giants don’t want the A’s in San Jose because one day a long time from now they may want to build a privately financed stadium in Silicon Valley. Thus preserving their T-Rights to that area is key to them.
BS is a coward and he put himself in this situation. He cannot get 75% vote and that is all that is stopping the A’s from moving. That and the pure selfishness of the Giants whom got those T-Rights for zero because Wally Haas was a “nice guy”. He may have been a great man but he was a terrible business man and he should have shot the Giants down years ago.
Selig thinks being MLB should be a Oh Boy! Neato! position where all he has to do is watch lots of baseball from the front row all over the country. Making tough, controversial decisions? Not something Selig has the courage to do. MLB had a great commissioner – Fay Vincent – who didn’t care if he upset the owners and he was quickly ushered out.
The owners making another owner (Selig) commissioner has always been a huge, blatant conflict of interest but MLB owners never cared.
addition: Selig thinks being MLB Commissioner….
Outside of LW, Purdy, Reed and a few others, where’s all the passion for the A’s in SJ? There’s sure a lot in Oakland, just by the fans who packed these last few meetings at City Hall, not to mention the 45,244 on FB, compared to baseball San Jose’s whopping 410 (it did grow by 3 in the last week).
They may have these big tech comapnies who may buy suites the for the first few years, but who’s gonna fill the other 30k seats day in, day out. I think that’s why LW keeps shrinking capacity. The demand really isn’t there in the SB.
I didn’t attend yesterday’s meeting (had to work), but watched it online. When I was just hearing it and not watching the video part, I thought it was Cheech from Cheech & Chong when IDLF was talking.
The time and cost of the VC EIR will depend on the amount of community opposition. VC has and will have plenty including but not limited to:
-Property Owners, Employees, Tenants displaced (remember VC was supposed to be an industrial conservation area per the General Plan.
-Jack London and Chinatown residents and businesses (the Oak/Jackson ramps from I-880 are the only way to get into their districts and they will be congested–with no solution in sight.
-Fiscal Conservatives, when they see the subsidy they have to come up with, my estimate north of $100
-Laney College-If these people ever figure it out. They are thinking that they are getting a free parking garage in exchange for their land. Think again. That parking garage is intended for the 900,000 sq. ft of office and retail development planned as part of the VC proposal. Hence, Laney College loses its expansion space, and control of its future.
–Me and my contingent–EIR’s are supposed to investigate reasonable alternatives to the project. If they don’t investigate 980 Park they violate CEQA. And moreover, it is plain stupid not to investigate an alternative–what if they find an indian burial ground on the VC, a metaphor of course.
My guess it will take more than 18 months, probably more like 24 months, because it will be tiering off the yet to be started for I-880/Broadway/Jackson EIR by the Alameda Transportation Commission. This project is charged with coming up with freeway improvements. And they are still at the drawing boards. By the way this project is only partially funded, so any additional improvements will be a further subsidy to the ballpark (and of course the developers of Oak to Ninth and ill fated Jack London Square project). By the way the I-880 project EIR is projected to take 24 months, in part because it is subject to Caltrans oversight. Hence the timing of 980 Park and VC could be the same.
Finally, we have not seen the letter from MLB that endorses VC. Shouldn’t that been a part of the staff report, if you are asking the City to cough up $750K?
jk says “There’s sure a lot in Oakland, just by the fans who packed these last few meetings at City Hall, not to mention the 45,244 on FB,”
.
Man, I sure wish all these Oakland backers would actually show up at the Coliseum to watch games!
Absolutely, LoneStranger. The building only fills when the Yankee$, Red $ox or Giants are playing. A midweek game against the Royals makes the place look like a mausoleum. And, of course, there’s the whopping 12,228 that showed up for Dallas Braden’s Sunday afternoon perfect game.
Holiday wish: no more every thread turns into a flame war with the same talking points
LoneStranger,
Just ignore the trolls and their nonsense/bull shit. It will work wonders for your sanity!
Speaking of BS, read this crap from Monte Poole this morning:
“It now seems, as some have assumed all along, that future (ballpark) will be in Oakland, at least as the first option. That was the talk after the Winter Meetings last week and it always was the most logical option, no matter what managing partner Lew Wolff said, or how firmly he said it…” blah, blah, blah. This seriously begs the questions: how is this guy writing for a major paper and what the hell are they teaching in journalism schools these days? The hell with reality and just write whatever the hell comes to mind first? Bull shit sells and damn the facts?
Look, if Purdy, and his contacts with Wolff and MLB insiders, is stating that the “BRC” is focusing only on the SJ track (with perhaps Oak being a backup), then that has more credibility than this Poole guy speaking into a toilet.
Sorry R.M., just a little annoyed by some in our media. Back to the topic at hand.
Jeffrey,
Just read your post. I’ll agree to a cease fire from here on out.
@LS and pjk–When you trade fan favorites every other year, and have one foot out the door 24/7, it’s hard to stay loyal. I’ve cut back on my games big time the last few years, I’m so fed up. Factor in a not so great facility, and you got 17k a game, which isn’t great, but I’ve seen it much worse back in the day. A new venue, new owners and better marketing will turn things around, just like when the Haas family took over from Finley. It wasn’t a new facility, but they poured a bunch of money into it, that it looked and felt much newer and better than the older version, and was one of the better venues for a cookie cutter stadium.
re: A new venue, new owners
You mean new owners willing to pay $500 mill for a new venue after paying $500 mill for the team. Good luck with that one. Has any such prospective ownership group showed up at Oakland deliberations on the VC property to express their interest in buying the team and building the stadium with no public or corporate support? Didn’t think so.
What’s going on with the A’s is right out there for the public to see so if there were a prospective ownership group willing to make this happen we probably would already know who they are.
There are maybe five comments that have anything to do with the post topic. Stop hijacking threads with your inane, repetitive BS.
@TonyD–read the Poole column. Interesting what BB said:
“This could be a fun town when we’re winning,” Beane said. “It’s a lot of fun. Sometimes I have to remind some of the people who aren’t familiar with that atmosphere — the last few years, drawing players here has been tough. But I remind them to talk to some of the guys who were here just a few years ago and they’ll tell you this is still one of the funnest places to play when you’re winning.
“So, ultimately, we do hope to get to that. I do think there’s some really great things (about) this town, this city and even this stadium, when you have a winning team.”
@LS-You’ll probably get the typical rhetoric from pro-Oakland backers: if LW a) spent money on marketing, b) spends $200 million on the team or 3) gave away $1million in a lottery at the games then more people would come!
@pjk-Correlating a parade to fan support is a bit misleading. It’s probably true that the SB A’s fanbase is not as large as say the Giants, but then again, the Bay Area as a whole generally supports the Giants more. When looking at the overall picture, i would cite attendance as only one measure of success for a teams move. Again, the Nats moved form a nil fanbase into Orioles territory and attendance shot up almost 4X. But, as i stated on the other thread, their revenue stream tripled allowing them to go after prized FA’s (Dunn, Werth, etc.) which will continue to attract more fans.
@ML/Jeffrey – apologies for feeding the trolls. Will keep on topic..
@Brian G. – You make some very interesting points: a) 24 months EIR!! b)violation of CEQA and c)letter from MLB that endorses VC
@Bryan- interesting input and summary of hurdles for VC—one can only wonder what Oakland is doing unless they have some incredible plan in place that details the proposed revenue streams that will be necessary to fund the building of the ballpark–IDLF comments where he said he wants to avoid another Raiders debacle indicates that the general fund will have some element of risk—also thought it was interesting that another councilwoman termed it “pie in the sky” and questioned why they were funding the EIR—-bottom line is that it is less than a unamious council in support and it will only get tougher as details emerge as to how they propose to build the ballpark and who will need to assume the risk (Oakland taxpayers) if revenue streams fail to materialize–
If there are MLB insiders actually saying that the BRC is focusing “only” on SJ then there is an obvious disconnect here. I can’t imagine the city voting in favor of spending $750k unless they felt at least some confidence that they are in the running. If this thing is rigged and there is only one outcome so to speak (i.e. the Purdy comment above), then either Oakland is misunderstanding their dialogue with the BRC or they are being lied to.
@ML–i apologize too for feeding the trolls/BSers. I will try to stick to the topic at hand 🙂
@OakAsFan-I don’t think the BRC has leaked anything to anyone, just continually studying with both city governments, hence the general queries to VC and Diridon leaks we hear. If there was such a candid statement from BRC, then we would immediately have seen it the greater media. I interpret Oakland’s EIR approval yesterday as more of politically motivated show, hence the disclaimer at the end. Because you can easily turn around your statement for the BRC focusing on Oakland, while LW starts showcasing SJ CIsco drawings?! Bud needs to step up quickly, because fan apathy is going to start settling in very soon….
OAF, isn’t that the central reason for IDLF’s no vote? That they don’t have a commitment from MLB?
I fully support the actions to fund the EIR, for the Victory Court site!
@ML – thanks for bringing up the point of the thread.
@OakAsFan–not sure that Oakland has that much confidence–they added the clause yesterday that they can terminate work on the EIR at any time and only pay for work performed. IDLF doesn’t want to move forward unless MLB and the A’s formally endorse Oakland–and Nancy Nadel calls the project “pie in the sky” and quesitons why they are funding an EIR. My sense is that Oakland is just trying to buy time and continue to string this along—and MLB forced their hand in put up or shut up type of situation. I would guess that another request of ML B to Oakland right now is to show how they propose to build the ballpark—–as MLB will at some point have to gain support of LW to keep his team in the city of Oakland or none of this makes sense. Next will be to establish a timeframe for issuing $100M in bonds to begin acquistion of the land for the ballpark…..if Oakland fails to deliver on any of these triggers than game is over there—-and of course opening day needs to be April of 2015 (good luck). Not implying that MLB will open up the territory to SJ—me thinks that BN is actually running baseball and not BS—more than likely the decision point for LW will be to stay at the Coli and continue to collect welfare and at some point in the future tackle this issue again…look to Fremont once again (they identified a new site) or look to relocate entirely–we all know what BN wants—and I am not so sure that BS would disagree with BN–
re: hijacking threads … who? do you mean the pro-SJ folks who say virtually, the same thing, over and over … or the pro-Oakland folks who repeat themselves, about the virtues of Oakland? Which group is “bullshitting”?
@ST – Agreed that Bud needs to step up. On the fan apathy note, what happens during the next few seasons if SJ is chosen? I’m referring to attendance and overall support from the existing local fans, many of whom will be livid. I suppose the answer really depends on what Oakland brings to the table for VC. In other words, existing fans may be able to accept either outcome if they believe Oakland was given a fair shot to keep the team.
@David – You make the call.
@OAF–i agree, it will be a pathetic site at the Coli if SJ is chosen. Attendance will drop for sure, no matter how hard they try to put a decent team out there. Can you imagine the signs how brutal they’ll be, ripping LW,Selig, SJ? Jorge Leon will be one busy dude.
re: OAF, isn’t that the central reason for IDLF’s no vote? That they don’t have a commitment from MLB?
Oakland needs to show its commitment to paying for the ballpark before MLB will commit to Oakland.
@Jeffrey – I didn’t mean to imply that they have a commitment from MLB. Rather, I was stating that to spend that amount of money without some confidence would be utter lunacy. Then again, we are talking about city leaders here.
@ GoAs – Good points. The only one I would take exception to is the clause. As a businessperson, I would want to include the option to cancel to avoid being on the hook for uncompleted work. It just makes good business sense to me and I’m not sure if that would be a good indication of confidence.
R.M.,
Are you going to have a thread for 1) the City of SJ’s approval of Wolff’s FMC/Soccer plan and 2) the City of SJ’s approval of selling RDA land (Brandenburg/San Pedro) for $31 million? This thread has been hijacked enough and I won’t go further off topic, but I think I’ve figured out why the “delay” in releasing the “BRC” report and why Selig hasn’t “forced” a vote yet on territorial rights (Rob’s gonna love it!).
@GoA’s-hmm, do you think they would revisit Fremont? The land near Tesla, right? Tesla said that they’d be okay with a ballpark over there, whereas Nummi wasn’t okay with it. Not quite the nimby’s over there like Pac Commons or the other site near 680. Just a stand alone park wasn’t in the cards I thought LW was saying in Fremont. It had to be a village with housing over there, or in an urban environment like DT SJ or Oak if it’s stand alone ballpark only.
OAF,
You forget that the Victory Court EIR will have alternatives studied as well as a 39k ballpark; ie residental, commerical development, mixed-use, etc. The study won’t be “wasted money” if a ballpark doesn’t get built
The NIMBYs, who fear “crime and chaos” from a new ballpark despite no evidence of this with any of the new ballparks built in the past 25 years, would again be out in full force in Fremont. Why bother?
@Tony D. – Nope, there’s already a thread on Airport West. What you’re suggesting about Brandenburg, and what GoA’s is suggesting regarding Neukom, are a bridge too far.
@Tony D. – Thanks. Yes, it definitely wouldn’t be wasted as there will be other studies in there as well.
@pjk–yeah, Fremont is definitely Rookie League when it comes to anything. China Chili is the only place I go to in that town. I think Gertrude Stein got her towns mixed up when she said there’s no there there.
@Tony D./OakAsFan – We can’t really make that assumption either. We know that there will be no ballpark sites other than Victory Court in the EIR. There will obviously be a “no build” or status quo alternative. There should be at least one other alternative, but we don’t really know what that is yet.
@jk–relative to Fremont who knows—LW went all in for SJ—one of the things that I am not fully up to speed on is how Forbes values a MLB franchise. Pittsburgh with its great ballpark on the water is the lowest valued franchise in all of MLB–Oakland is the 2nd lowest. As an owner one of my big objectives would be making sure that the value of my franchise increases significantly–which I have to believe is highly dependent upon where a ballpark is located relative to corporate dollars, advertising, tv etc—-I know you hate it but Fremont is Silicon Valley and if you cant be in the capital of Silicon Valley than being on the doorstep might be the next best thing—of course the question of generating the revenue streams to support building a ballpark there would need to be addressed. Bottom line is that Fremont would not be in a position to place any general funds at risk—and frankly, I dont believe that Oakland is either which is why I don’t believe VC will ever happen—personal opinion and not intended to create a flame war–
@GoA’s–I wonder how much a new park would add to a franchise’s value? I know its huge for the Giant’s, Cowboys, Yanks and others. And it’s hurt the A’s, Raiders and Vikings value, being in sub-par older venues.
I know, Fremont is SV north. Even though it’s in Alameda County, it feels more like techie SJ than gritty Oakland going down there. That’s another reason why LW wanted a name change in Fremont and not include Oakland in the name. That was a kick in the teeth to us Oakland supporters, losing the name and all, but Fremont didn’t happen. I was never for the park there, and actually think DT SJ is a better location than anything in Fremont, even though I hope they stay in Oakland, obviously.
At least we now know how Victory Court was selected as the proposed Oakland site: MLB made the decision for Oakland. That abdication of responsibility aside, kudos to the committee for approving the full EIR, and especially for including that escape clause. That’s a really smart move. Hopefully, the city council will approve it as well. With all the uncertainty about this process and the TR’s in particular, it’s good to have options.
I realize that this is off the main topic and I do apologize. However, if a successful EIR allows for further progression by Oakland and VC becomes a reality, there must have been evidence of financial viability, or at least I would think so. This made me think about the local corporate situation and the posts I have read regarding this. Note that I would never try to compare the local corporate base to that of SV, which would be futile given all of the powerhouse tech companies located there. However, I’m wondering why it is assumed there will be little to no corporate support for the A’s in Oakland. I spent some time looking at company financials and, not even counting companies outside the geographic area who may want to sponsor the team, if we simply just look at local companies in Alameda/CC counties, it’s not unimpressive. In addition, there are small and midsize businesses in these counties that just might have the resources to sponsor the team. While it would be a major hurdle, let’s just for a moment assume the initial construction funding gets resolved somehow (loans, bonds, whatever). There is still the ongoing sponsorship from signage and the purchasing of luxury suites. I’ve read several posts in the past that ridiculed the $500k raised from 35 local companies which, if I understood it correctly, are deposits and not total dollar amounts. Again, I’m not disputing that SV has mega corporations who can obviously support this (Cisco – $4mil x 30 yrs for $120 mil). I’m just trying to see if I’m missing something since the logical belief seems to be that local Alameda/CC counties wouldn’t be able to support the team at all. Please note that my post is sincere and I’m not trying to stir up anything.
@OakAsFan—your post raised a few good qestions and will be interested in other responses. A few data points for me–no one has come forward ot my knowledge and agreed to take on the naming rights at $120M or something very close. Second, when the Raiders returned from LA PSL’s were a key revenue generator with the city of Oakland on the hook if the didn’t materialize. We all know what happened here so those companies you referring to didn’t step up to the plate for the Raiders and haven’t in the 15 years since they have been back. I don’t have stat’s on sales of luxury suites and how that compares-but bottom line for me is that money talks—since 35 companies signed a pledge to invest in advertising, tickets etc I would expect that Oakland will be expected to guarantee revenue streams that would be generated by PSL’s by naming rates, advertising etc—and if these revenue streams don’t materialize than Oakland taxpayers and its general fund will be expected to cover the shortfall–IDLF referenced this in his comments yesterday. So bottom line a market where the corporations have failed to step up to the plate in the past will be expected to guarantee the revenue streams and than leave it up to Oakland to show that they have what they claim to have–
@OakA’sFan – In terms of fan apathy, i think you can cite the Raiders fan as a parallel case where they moved much further distance and still have fan support. Even though Al Davis broke their hearts, supposedly they still attend the games. Also regarding your sponsorship ideas, they have some credibility, however no big name sponsor has stepped up with as much as Cisco has offered. You don’t want a new stadium laced with a myriad of logos and trademarks everwhere, otherwise it will feel very Triple A-ish. In these economic times, only a big corporation like that of Cisco can afford sponsorship of that magnitude without impacting their financial bottom lines significantly. Got any names that pops out in the east bay though (KP would get killed for such outlandish use of funds given how cheap they are. Clorox may come close but hasn’t stepped up).
@Sid – Curious of your thoughts on the delay…. 😉
@Dude – You do not know that, as even IDLF said that there was no offiical letter from MLB stating as such. It is pure speculation and IMHO a dog and pony show to appease Oaklanders for political sake
re: However, I’m wondering why it is assumed there will be little to no corporate support for the A’s in Oakland.
Well, who is the current name rights sponsor for the existing Coliseum? That would be no one. For a stadium used from April through December for two teams, unlike other stadiums used either from April through October or September through December. So even though a company would get several months’ more of corporate name rights exposure, no East Bay corporation has stepped up to the plate. The last corporate naming rights sponsor – McAfee – was based in Silicon Valley.
Also, the coliseum arena had no corporate naming rights sponsor for years and years until Larry Ellison stepped in. And he was supposed to buy the team but that did not happen. So let’s see if Oracle renews when the deal is up.
@ GoA’s/ST/pjk – Thanks for the replies. You’ve answered my question as it seems that the overwhelming theme is that nobody has publicly stepped up to commit money. I was always blindly looking at “potential” dollars and never really gave the commitment part too much thought. I can see where this would give the impression of little corporate support and it makes sense. Also, I understand GoA’s points about the Raiders and the PSL’s.
@ST – I didn’t even address your question. As far as east bay corporations, the large revenue companies are Chevron (San Ramon), Safeway (Pleasanton), Kaiser (Oakland), Ross Stores (Pleasanton), Clorox (Oakland), UTStarcom (Alameda), Chiron – Susidiary of Novartis (Emeryville), Bio-Rad (Hercules), Dryer’s – Subsidiary of Nestle (Oakland), and Cost-Plus, Inc. (Oakland). Chevron, with > $270 bil in revenues by far dwarfs the rest of the pack (Safeway ~$40 bil). As far who would step up to the plate (pun), I have no clue. Chevron Park, anyone?
That would be Dreyer’s.
Ross Dress for Less Park?
ST – true there’s nothing documented that has been made public, but I’m going by this from the article: “The city chose the Victory Court site after representatives from Major League Baseball signaled they preferred that waterfront location over others proposed nearby.” There was a question before of how the city trimmed the list from 4 to 1 because there was no public vetting or discussion. Just suddenly one site. Now we know how that happened, if the article is to be believed.
.
I want to clarify something as I think there may be some confusion about it. I’m talking about MLB giving a preference among the Oakland sites, not vis-a-vis SJ. I don’t believe MLB has given any indication on Oakland vs SJ. But if that article is correct, they did give an indication of VC vs other sites in Oakland. Wasn’t sure if that was clear before.
@Dude – thanks for that clarification. Makes sense.
@LetsGoAs- Chevron definitely tops the pack and has quite a presence internally in the ads. Safeway also is pretty big, but Pleasonton doesn’t seem to fit the bill as a large Oakland presence IMHO. These are very traditional blue chip stock kind of companies, which is great. However, missing out on the 1.5 trillion revenues of the SVLG should really wake up MLB.
@ST – Thanks for the reply. Re: Pleasanton; I counted corporations in Alameda/CC counties, which is logically the A’s area. Two of my siblings and lots of cousins live in Pleasanton. Many A’s as well as Giants fans in that town. As for the SVLG — Please know that I’m not trying to be difficult nor am I trying to stir the pot. I simply want to understand this issue. To recap, I have been reading posts for awhile that are adamant that Oakland (and it’s surrounding A’s territory) cannot provide the revenue stream to sustain an MLB team. In addition, it has been relayed that SV has more than enough resources to accomplish this, which I do not doubt. The argument seemed to be that there aren’t enough companies with HQ in the east bay. I wish I could find the post but I recall specifically a pro-Oak poster naming a company in the EB, which was immediately shot down because it wasn’t the corporate HQ. On that note, when people would mention SVLG I would immediately assume it was comprised of companies with HQ in SV. I went to their website and it said that they consist of over 300 companies with over $1 trillion in revenues. When I brought up the list I noticed immediately that there were companies that maybe have offices in SV, but their HQ is elsewhere, i.e. American Airlines is a member but they have HQ in Fort Worth, TX. More tellingly, though, was that I saw Microsoft, which has HQ in WA. The reason I bring that up is because I also remember a post that said MSFT is not into sponsoring sports teams. My question, therefore, concerns the figures provided. Does the $1 trillion (or $1.5 as you mentioned) in revenues include companies in the SVLG that do not have HQ locally? Moreover, does it include MSFT, which apparently doesn’t support pro teams? If it does include all companies regardless of location, then it would only be logical, when analyzing potential revenue in Oakland, to include companies doing business in the east bay that are not necessarily considered the home office. Some examples would be Oracle (formerly Peoplesoft) in Pleasanton, AT&T (formerly SBC), which has buildings in San Ramon big enough for thousands of workers, and the national brokerages like Merrill, UBS, Morgan that can be found all throughout the east bay. I would like to keep comparisons on an equal footing as I’m analyzing potential revenues in each location. Again, I’m not diminishing SV, which has a huge amount of ultra-wealthy businesses operating there. I’m not in any way questioning SV’s ability to support pro teams. I just want to see if there is merit to the argument that the east bay cannot sustain a team. I agree that companies lacking the balls to step forward with commitments is a huge sign in this regard. I’m not arguing that part of it at all. I just want to understand, when I hear “$1 trillion in revenues from SV,” am I comparing apples to apples with revenue potential in the east bay? I hope this post doesn’t come across the wrong way as I am truly being sincere in my questions. Thanks in advance.
@OakA’sFan- while you can debate the actual revenues and debate how large to draw the circle I would make a much simplier case—LW has proposed to build a privately financed ballpark in SJ where he will own the risk of selling naming rights, psls, advertising, suites etc. In Oakland LW isn’t willing ot build a privately financed ballpark and therefore Oakland has to be confident that they can get the corporations to support a new ballpark in downtown Oakland including buying the naming rights, psl’s, suites etc because they will ultimately be the ones to own the risk…just like they did in the Raiders deal…which they still owe $144M because they were overly optimistic on the level of corporate support-
@OakA’sFan – Fair question. To be succinct, I do not have an answer in terms of a monetary amount if you compare actual locality, but I’m sure the south bay would triumph (intel, apple, cisco, yahoo, ebay, etc.). What I can cite however, is the actual letter and who endorsed it: https://newballpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/MLB+Commissioner+Stadium+Letter+9-8-10.pdf . Yes, there is quite a number of non-local entities in the SVLG including IBM, BofA, 49ers, etc.., however their point and agenda was quite clear: they condone the SJ baseball stadium and intentionally omitted any references to Oakland. That is unsolicited business support with a lot of political clout from the CEOs that signed it. But as GoA’s noted above, Oakland needs to have corporate support in order for the stadium to be viable because it will be publicly funded. In SJ, LW would build it privately and still have companies supporting the effort. A win-win minimal loss situation.
OAF, I am a Pleasanton resident. You are correct, we got plenty of A’s fans around town.
.
I would phrase, the corporate angle, like this… It is more likely that Chevron would support a stadium in both San Jose and Oakland, then it is that Cisco would do the same. John Chambers pretty much said so when asked why they had all kinds of advanced technology in the New Meadowlands but wouldn’t put the Cisco name on the stadium.
.
If you follow the Giants stadium financing model, roughly 96% came from two sources. One was a loan, the second was corporate dollars (or overwhelmingly corporate dollars if not entirely corporate dollars). Between Pac Bell’s naming rights and charter seats/psl’s the Giants raised just under half of the $357M in construction costs. Take out the 5% of AT&T that was public money, adjust for the projected cost of Cisco Field (or JLS Nameless Park) and the A’s have to come up with $230M (half of the estimated $460M construction costs) to follow that model.
.
In San Jose, with a similar deal to what was in place for Fremont, they are more than half of the way to the $230M right now. That is pretty significant and the reason I have always felt like, taking into account all other issues (TR’s, tradition, senators, etc.), San Jose has a bit of a lead.
.
When I spoke with folks from Oakland who had knowledge of what MLB was pledging, they told me that MLB had suggested that $150M could be had in the form of a loan. Take $150M, add the $130M from Cisco, and the stadium is half paid for before a single psl or charter seat is sold. Take the remaining $180 Million and divide it by 60 (roughly the number of SVLG companies that signed the letter, excluding colleges and such) and you have $3M per company in the form of sponsorship/charter seats. A high number, but not such a large percentage of any of those companies SG and A budgets. Add in the fact that, like Oakland, there are plenty of small and medium sized businesses that would get in on this stuff and you don’t have to squint too much to see a path to funding.
.
It is hard to back into that kind of number in Oakland using purely private sources. That is why IDLF is concerned. That is why they have the “back out” clause. The math is pretty tough.
@GoA’s – Excellent point. I am very well aware of LW’s position in this regard and this is something that I would probably analyze at a different time. Just to clarify, I was simply trying to evaluate the argument against Oakland/EB corporate support while, at the same time, get a good feel for the SV market. As I mentioned, I am not arguing SV’s ability one bit. I think SV is more than capable of supporting pro sports. One of the prevailing arguments has been that there isn’t enough corporate business available for support in the EB and I’m trying to evaluate that. Understand that I am simply looking at availability period. I am not yet looking into the commitments and owner’s preferences, etc. Since you did bring up some very good points, it made me think of something. Since LW is SJ or bust and will not build in Oakland under any circumstances, the naming rights issue from your post intrigued me. Should VC actually work out, are you saying that the city would be solely responsible for initiating and maintaining the corporate relationships to ensure continued support and thus, revenue? If that is true what role would LW and the A’s marketing staff have? Would the marketing staff not have any responsibilities in the area of corporate relationships?
@ST – Thanks for your reply. Please expand on what you mean by “Oakland needs corporate support because it will be publicly funded yet LW will privately finance the SJ stadium” (I’m paraphrasing your post, but you get the gist). I’m not aware of there being any talk of VC being publicly funded unless I missed something.
@Jeffrey – Great points in your post. The math is definitely complex and it will be a huge challenge.
Personally, I would prefer Kaiser or Clorox to have the naming rights for an Oakland park at Victory Ct.. Both have deep roots in Oakland, even though Clorox will be shipping out a ton of jobs to Pleasanton. Safeway moved out of Oakland over 20 years ago, so screw them. Dreyer’s is kind of small, but Nesltle Park may work. Chevron makes the most sense out all the eastbay companies. I wish someone would step up and help Oakland’s cause regarding naming rights, even though I read LGO is working on it. Gotta fire off another e-mail to Doug Boxer.
@ST – Unless you meant Oakland needs corporate support OTHERWISE it will have to be publicly funded.
@OakA’sFan- naming rights to a ballpark are there soley to generate revenue—as Jeffrey has pointed out this is one of the sources of revenue–in SJ a deal has been signed with Cisco for $120+M. My take is that the only deal that LW will ever consider in Oakland is one in which the city takes on all of the risk…after all the city is claiming that it has the corporate support of the community and has touted that with the 35 companies that pledged a total of $500k. Relative to the A’s marketing staff playing a role—they promote the team to capture market share and depending on the deal could secure some level of advertising provided the A’s will directly benefit. Oakland will have the sole responsiblity to pay the $500M of ballpark construction–it will be up to the A’s and the city of Oakland to figure out how best to pay for this without impacting the teams ability to put people in the seats. As Jeffrey noted above its a pretty challenging task that IMHO will require a significant public subsidy to even begin to pencil out….but hey….the remodel of the Coli went downt this same way…and they are planning to tear it down and rebuild a new one for the Raiders even with a remaining $140M mortgage so if the residents of Oakland are good with another public subsidy than so be it—
@jk – Kaiser or Clorox would be great. I would settle for anyone with the money and the commitment and I care not where they are located. This would be a new ballpark that would be all in the news leading up to opening day, especially because of all that has been going on for years. A corporation, in my humble opinion, would be dumb not to want to jump on the naming rights if it was in their budget to do so. To me this would be true for either VC or SJ (CSCO was smart enough to have committed there). From a corporate standpoint I can understand a preferred location, however, I’m not clear why a commitment would only be made for one location but not the other. Why would XYZ, Inc. care where their banner is being flown as long as it’s in the limelight.
@OakAsFan – It’s a matter of convenience for Cisco. When you go into Cisco’s HQ there is a huge technological showcase visible right inside the lobby. They like to show off what they make. Cisco Field is going to be that tech showcase X100, and it’ll be 15 minutes away by car during rush hour. They want to be able to take their customers, partners, and vendors there on a regular basis. Having a ballpark in Oakland makes that difficult. Cisco’s way of doing business is fairly unique in this regard.
@GoA’s – I’m thinking of the term Revenue as ongoing dollars coming in year after year, i.e. from corporate suite renewals, advertising. Is the CSCO money being counted toward the initial construction cost or is it being considered as future, ongoing revenue? Put simply, it sounds like the construction total will have to be some mix of naming rights, a bank loan (or MLB loan), sponsorships/psl’s,etc. and other sources.
Cisco’s deal is annual payment of $4M for 30 years–no doubt there will be a loan(s) required to build the ballpark—the key is…whether it is a loan from MLB or the bank they both will expect repayment. SJ’s proposal is LW builds it and pays for it—in Oakland’s case…assuming that LW would agree—Oakland will need to build it and pay for it—
@ML–i know Cisco is huge in computer networking, but is such a bland and faceless company compared to other tech companies like Apple, E-Bay, Yahoo, Adobe, Intel and Facebook. Give me a more tangible old school company like a Clorox, Kaiser, Safeway, or even greedy Chevron. Even Progressive Field in Cleveland has Flo.
@jk-usa – So now you’ve gone from denigrating cities for not meeting your standards to companies? You are so full of crap, it’s unbelievable.
BRAVO…BRAVO!!!!!
Kaiser is a non-profit health entity with operations in several states . They would never spend multi-millions to help build and name a baseball park. That may not even legally be allowed by their non-profit charter. Plus imagine the PR headache when an SF Kaiser pt /Giants fan can’t get that brand new $$$ medication he saw advertised on TV the next day from his Kaiser physician -he’ll blog to the world tand complain to state insurance regulators that it was because they spent their pharmacy budget on a stadium in Oakland !
I suppose they might sponsor something like a informational wellness pavillion in the stadium concourse , at the most, but that would bascially be more for advertising their ” Thrive ” branding.
@ JK, come on, are you kidding me?
@ob–I was wondering about that, if a non-profit like Kaiser would spend on naming rights. They sure spend a ton on TV and radio commercials. They’ve been in Oakland forever and have 1000’s of employees in the area. “Thrive” with the Oakland A’s.
@ML and fc–okay, I apologize, Cisco isn’t totally faceless. They have those Ellen Page commercials in the classroom with the kids. But she’s no Flo.
@GoA’s – Thanks again for the reply. When you say so-and-so will have to “pay for it,” your really saying obtain financing, correct (damn semantics)? Construction costs are offset by a big naming rights contract. Are you saying that there is some kind of creative financing going on with that portion of the money, i.e. the $120 from CSCO? Assuming a $500 million estimate — If the team obtains a bank loan for the amount net of everything else this has to be paid back to the bank, let’s say $200 million over 30 years (there’s $200m). If MLB provides a loan for another $150 million, this too has to be paid back, let’s say over 30 years (there’s $350m). XYX, Inc. agrees to naming rights for 30 years for another $120 million (there’s $470m). PSL’s/Suites/Advertising are purchased for an additional $30 million (there’s $500m). In other examples I have read that the balance owed would be the 2 notes outstanding (Bank & MLB). Based on your scenario above, XYZ would give me $4 million each year for the next 30 years. Since construction people would want to be paid today, where am I going to get the $120 million that would be owed right now? My creative financing question above refers to whether or not there is some other form of a loan, i.e. from wealthy private investors, who will use the XYZ 30-year guarantee as a securitization. In other words, the investors would front the $120 million today to pay the construction people and use the $4 million per year as payment to them. Is this how would understand the financing of this project?
@ML – Thanks. Your Cisco example makes sense. I can see where a unique company like that would want to have the convenience of having a local ballpark should they have their own state-of-the-art technology on display there.
@GoA’s – Notwithstanding my multiple spelling errors in my previous post, I meant to add that the wealthy private investors fronting the $120 million would expect yearly payment with interest, i.e. the $4 million plus whatever financing rate that is agreed upon.
@OakAsFan – Stadium builders usually get multiple sources of financing. Lenders force this because the individual loans are secured based on specific revenue streams. These can include private sources such as suite sales, naming rights, and corporate sponsorships. Public sources include sales and sin taxes. At the bottom are highly variable sources like actual ticket sales. The more of that revenue can be locked in (10-year suite, 30-year naming rights), the lower the interest rate. With every corporate or major private interest that doesn’t buy in upfront, the more the debt falls on the highly variable, and thus higher risk/interest service. All stadium builders, whether they are teams or cities or a partnership, want to avoid that as much as possible.
@TonyD–“BRAVO…BRAVO!!!!!”
And now for my encore…..
@ML–all the guys ripping Oakland ad-nauseum for not meeting their standards is okay and you leave them alone. But me, I’m full of crap and unbelievable? Cisco’s getting 4 years free publicity for a park that may never get built in SJ. They should jump on the Oakland ballpark if Oak is picked and see this all the way through. I don’t have a problem with that, if they commit to the money, but it’s just not a very exciting name or company like these bank names is all I’m saying.
@ML – Thank you for the reply. I’m still wondering about the total naming rights dollar amount, whether it’s paid over 30 years or whatever, and how I’ve read that the total construction cost was offset by this exact amount. If the company with that naming rights contract pays the total out over the 30 years, how is the builder getting paid for that today? Are you saying that the builder would go obtain a bank loan themselves securitized in part by the naming rights contract? On that note, what would have happened with the Astros and Enron Field? Did that naming rights amount get passed onto taxpayers? Would the Astros (or Houston) have been treated as a creditor similar to secured bondholders? While Enron’s situation was uncommon, it does happen occasionally and I would suspect the team would have some kind of backup plan.
@jk-usa – Are they ripping Oakland for being bland or suburban or something else that isn’t germane to the discussion? No. Sometimes they talk about Oakland’s fiscal situation, but you and others have also pointed out that San Jose is in a similar situation. You, on the other hand, are quick to ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the tasks at hand. That’s why you get the slapdown.
As I mentioned to OakAsFan, it’s a matter of convenience. Not a slight against Oakland. If Cisco Field doesn’t work out, there’s another stadium they can make a deal with. Think of it this way: the only two naming rights holders for the Coliseum and Arena came from the tech industry, and neither happened quickly, they took years to happen. And that was during boom times. Why did it happen that way, and why were there – still are – no East Bay suitors?
@OakAsFan – Cisco’s payments would be part of the annual debt service. The loans aren’t necessarily going to get signed all at once, the builder has the discretion to do them on a staggered basis. Keep in mind that the builder may also have cash on hand to get the ball rolling. All of the development cost would be paid by the end of the construction period.
@Sid – Have to make an example of you here. This discussion has veered wildly off topic at times, and your comment only makes it worse. I’ve deleted it.
@ML–okay, slapdown accepted and deserved. I get a little carried away at times. Cisco is a very big, very important company, and I know they have some goodies planned for the new ballpark if it’s built, and that can be exciting to better the whole fan experience for some.
Yes, the 49er stadium is a good backup for them, whenever that thing gets off the ground.
As a pro-Oak fan who has never once said a bad thing about SJ, it is posts like these that just make no sense, although it might be humorous to some on here. As one of just a handful of Oakland supporters it’s difficult enough just to be on here, much less have to read unwarranted attacks against the city I’m supporting that add no value to the discussion. My initial reaction is to reply in kind with unflattering comments but I’m not going to resort to that although I can see clearly how someone would. I can see where this is heading and, before it gets ugly, I will just take myself out of the picture and go elsewhere. @jk and others – You may want to as well. To all of the rational posters on here that provided constructive conversations and to ML. Thank you. Good luck to all.
@ ML – not to spark further tension, but damn…..hehe.
@ OakAsFan – thanks for your constructive inquiries. it’s folks like you who are smart enough to ask the questions that need to be asked that will ensure any stadium effort, regardless if it is in Oak or VC, is viable enough to the long term health of the a’s. i appreciate the fact that you can set aside the emotional aspect of these discussion to look at the rationale behind them and hope that you will continue to query these important topics and not let a few folks get to you.
xhttp://www.csncalifornia.com/12/15/10/Ratto-Oakland-still-in-game-for-new-As-s/landing_ratto_v3.html?blockID=374056&feedID=3430
ratto was also on chron live on wed and said that sj hasn’t shown it could raise the money?
huh, what is the 120 million which probably would be 1/3 of what the new park in sj would cost with naming rights. not to mention the svlg letter that has corporations saying they’d support the a’s thru advertising and buying up boxes in all likelyhood.
@letsgoas – Ratto is referring to the halt on land acquisition. Why is it that you guys always retreat to this defensive SJ corporate posture? It’s really tired.
@ ML – will it may be old tired rhetoric, the corporate support (especially the naming rights) is an important element to financing and future revenue stream. I would only challenge ratto on 2 basis: 1) that Oakland has no parcels of land, period while SJ has 80% wrapped up and 2)the impending sales of the FMC and SJ North Pedro sites will generate ~$120 million back to the RDA fund for further acquisition, especially the recent PQP moves with ATT.
Okay, I’ll be on topic on this still open thread. I will be at the meeting this Tuesday for the City Council vote on the EIR study. I’ll try to refrain from booing the two “No” votes from Ignacio De La Fuente, and the visionless Nancy Nadel, who was against the Uptown site back in 2002 and against the Fox Theater purchase and renovation by the city. She’s way more concerned about banning plastic bags and banning smoking near bus stops than trying to build up a vibrant, exciting city. Why do they keep re-electing these boobs?
@jk-usa–Please oppose the vote on spending $750K on an EIR for VC. The city council already knows the answer based on the EIR on Oak to Ninth certified January of 2010. The relevant finding is that all the intersections at the base of the northbound and southbound I-980 ramps at Jackson and Oak are at Level of Service F, the worst you can get. The City Council will learn nothing from the EIR. Caltrans and Alameda Transportation Commission do not have the funds to improve I-880. Victory Court is dead in the water.
The only viable solution is 980 Park. Yes it may take a lot of time to deal with Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration, because they are underfunded. But it is the only economically viable solution. Because the land is free, plenty of free parking, no ramp capacity limitation, community support and easy access to BART.
The City should spend half the money on a Project Study Report with Caltrans on 980 Park site. This is no race. San Jose does not have a viable site. Their site has the same freeway access constraints as Victory Court.
Wolff knows it, he is just negotiating. Don’t fall into his trap.
@ML- No worries dude. I had a feeling I was hijacking the thread! Ha!
@Bryan Grunwald- You are correct about Victory Court but you are incorrect about San Jose’s site having bad freeway access. In fact 4 major freeways pass through or near Downtown to that site (880, 87, 280, and 101).
The Sharks have shown that area can support 20k of people with very little issues regarding traffic on game days even if its during the work week.
You can easily find parking for free or cheap in a garage on weeknights before games no problem within 2 miles of the site. The only concern is when both the A’s and Sharks have games on the same nights during the work week but the Sharks got approval to build a massive parking garage behind the arena if the A’s move in to alleviate this problem.
Not to mention you will have maybe 5-10 days a year with overlap and some of those days will be on the weekend where there will not be any issues at all.
I think you need to visit the Diridon site and drive around. You will see there are 10 different ways to get to and leave from that site. The main reason is because Downtown San Jose is very centrally located freeway and road wise.
980 got shot down because of the neighborhood and the fact it would take “days” to get a permit to build on top of a freeway. There is no ancillary development there to support the new ballpark either because of the bad neighborhood nor will there ever be.
Like Ratto says in his article “Rumors during the winter meetings last week that suggested strongly that Major League Baseball (which is Bud Selig about seven owners) favors an Oakland site tend to make a fella go, “Hmmmmmmmm.”
He says it the best, there are 7 owners or so besides the SF Giants who are standing in the way of a San Jose ballpark.
The A’s are doomed to rot in the Coliseum for years to come guys. If I was LW and JF I would sit around and collect $$ just to spite the league as being a business if you can make coin then why not?
BG – Interesting assessment on VC: “Victory Court is dead in the water.” As for Diridon, Sid already cited all the freeway access as well as being the main SB transit corridors coming (BART,HSR, VTA LR, etc.).
@Bryan Grunwald: Is the surrounding area of the 980 site fit to absorb the additional traffic a ballpark would generate? With BART being a 10 min walk from the ballpark site, there’d also be additional pedestrian traffic at intersections further impeding the flow of cars.
.
Could you post more information on the 980 ballpark proposal on your website? It’d be a good resource during the discussions that spring up concerning this project. Thanks.