Nearly thirty years ago I went on a field trip with my brother and dad to a nursery in the Santa Cruz mountains. The nursery mostly grew coast redwoods. The afternoon was chilly as the marine layer wafted in over the mountains, giving the trees the moist, dense air that makes them thrive. As we left, my brother and I were both given redwood saplings in half-gallon milk cartons. We decided to plant them in the planter strip near the curb in front of the house. I forgot which brother was responsible for which tree.
Ten years later both trees had grown, though not taller than the other trees on the block. The western tree was taller than the eastern tree and had a thicker trunk. They required no maintenance. My dad laid down iceplant (just like at the old Coliseum!) around the trees and everything coexisted peacefully.
Another ten years passed, and from all appearances the western tree was growing like crazy, whereas the eastern tree was stalling out. The western tree also had much more substantial root growth, which could be identified by the uprooted sidewalk next to the tree. Its brother to the east posed no threat to strollers and skateboarders. Eventually the city noticed the problem with the sidewalk and told us that we had no business planting those trees next to the curb. We were told to put a tree in the yard next time, where it could have more space to grow. One day the city chopped down the western tree, which had grown to 20 feet tall. Later they pulled out the stump and fixed the sidewalk. The eastern tree still stands, growing little by little (I think). My dad calls it the Christmas tree and runs the holiday lights out to the former sapling every December. It remains the only redwood on the block.
San Jose’s redevelopment agency is much like the western tree. It grew as a mighty redwood was supposed to, big and tall and fast. Over time it became too big for its own good, and to keep it from destroying the street it had to be chopped down. SJRA’s mission was informed by a quest to become a big city, which meant putting tons of resources into it. Some of it was well directed (library, convention center, arena, museums) and some of it wasn’t (numerous retail failures). SJRA has a ton of fundamental problems that make it difficult to easily chop down. Yet that’s exactly what it’s done. In preparation for the upcoming fiscal year 109 jobs were slashed, or 91% of staff. Even as they expressed outrage at the passage of the twin “kill” bills, they clearly saw what was coming down the road and prepared for it.
Over the next year it’s expected that many RDA’s will be chopped down like the western tree. Most of those will be agencies that have grown too big or have become unmanageable. The loose definitions of blight and even the term “redevelopment” have allowed the agencies to grow unchecked. Controller John Chiang’s audit covered numerous instances of waste and abuse. Agencies who have mismanaged themselves are likely to get cut down, while the properly managed ones – and they do exist – have a chance to stay alive, like the eastern tree. What we don’t know is the criteria for separating the good ones from the bad ones.
With the first real salvo fired in the redevelopment war on Wednesday, every agency throughout the state is scrambling to protect or save themselves from the coming onslaught.
- Oakland is moving to protect $100 million in assets and projects by shuffling stuff around. A bit late, no?
- Somewhat OT – John Russo had a few parting shots at Oakland City Hall as he moved to Alameda.
- Santa Cruz County is uncertain how many cuts it might have to make.
- Escondido’s ballpark project may be dead.
- The LA Times has a perfect graph showing where the money to bridge the budget deficit is coming from. Not pretty.
If you’ve read this far, you now get a treat of ballpark news! The Merc’s Tracy Seipel checked in with both Lew Wolff and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to catch their responses to the redevelopment shuffle. Wolff appears undeterred, still saying he can buy land if necessary, though he hasn’t actually done it. Maybe he’s waiting to find out what he might have to buy once the dust settles. Reed provided three scenarios under which the Diridon land can be made whole:
- Wolff could buy the two parcels, and the city could sell him the rest of the ballpark site.
- The city could sell agency assets to buy the last two parcels, then sell the entire site to Wolff.
- The city could buy the last two parcels and lease the site to Wolff, with the city using the lease as security for financing to pay for the land.
These are all scenarios we’ve discussed here on the blog. None of what San Jose has done has been sexy or attention-grabbing. I’ve noted in the past that I could often count all of the people present at a ballpark-related session on two hands. The point is that they get things done. Every time an obstacle has come up, they’ve figured out a way to deal with it. Consider the following:
- PG&E substation move? Not needed, ballpark configured to fit within purchased land.
- Fire training station move? Garage requirement eliminated, no longer necessary.
- Sharks objections? Lifted once entitlements were made for garage/commercial development on north side of HP Pavilion.
- AT&T land stalemate? Possibly resolved when city provided entitlements to AT&T for land near Santana Row.
- Worries about parking related EIR impacts? Not if “enough” parking is found on the other side of Guadalupe Parkway. (*shakes head*)
We’re in for an interesting rest of the year. In the morning I’ll check on what ORA and City Hall did with the $100 million.
One more thing: Billy Beane obliterates Lowell Cohn in this interview.
newballpark.org 
Love the tree story RM. Also love the Reed scenarios! Whether its Wolff buying the land outright or leasing it at market rate, both scenarios would require no vote, public referendum. Hopefully this will be the case.
Shovels in the ground by September 2012…DAMN STRAIGHT!
By the way, where in the hell did Tracy get this $500 million for ballpark crap?
And this nonsense that the city doesn’t have the money to buy the last two parcels?
I guess writing for the Merc always has to be about doom and gloom. Thank God for your blog RM!
I thought SJ was going to hold a vote anyway even if not required by law (which it won’t be in any case since the city isn’t paying for the stadium).
Beane used to be a cool cat.
re: Oakland’s “lateness”, Boxer said Oakland’s D-EIR was going to take a year to finish. They just added the 980 idea to the mix. MLB doesn’t seem to be in a hurry. And doing something as big as this (building a ballpark), requires due diligence.
Now, lets whoop some SF ass tonight!!
Problem is Oakland’s lateness to the party may end up killing them. They’re going to need several hundred million from their RDA to build the stadium and acquire land in Oakland. RDA is now dead man walking so that money will not be present. And because they didn’t hurry they aren’t able to protect the amounts needed to build a stadium… That’s why they needed to move faster.
And agreed, whoop some SF ass tonight.
@David, I kind of agree with Beane. Lowell Cohn has always been an ass.
.
I can’t say it with 100% certainty, but it seems to me that if the RDA “transition” happens that they (Oakland) may as well cancel the EIR. Victory Court won’t happen.
@Jeffrey – “never let them see you sweat”…. i’m not going to *speculate* about the future of RDA and what that might mean going forward.
@dan/tony d- San Jose has been very clear that if and when the time comes, there will be a vote.
.
I imagine the $500m number came from BSSJ.
And, I just read the John Russo thing… wow.
Russo said:
All anyone has to do is watch one or two City Council sessions to pick up on this. It’s exactly why I’m skeptical about Oakland. Mayor Quan is known as a consensus builder and for that she deserves the benefit of the doubt. But to build a ballpark at Victory Court will require a consensus bigger than the city itself. I don’t know if they’re capable of pulling it off.
David, you going to be at the game tonight?
Anyone ever watch “Cash Cab”? I cringe when folks go double or nothing and loose it all.
“take the damn $800!” i’ll often yell at the TV screen. That’s what I feel SJ would be doing if it took this thing to a vote and one wasn’t necessary.
Lies sell; one just has to read San Jose Inside or the “Better Sense SJ” websites to see the lies in waiting for a ballpark referendum.
If the electorate was convinced by lies/slander and the ballpark was voted down, then SJ would have blown a chance of a lifetime.
Double or nothing or just take the money? SJ, just take the damn money!
loved the redwood story. OT: those where the days when the City would fix your sidewalk !!
.
The appalling number in Tracy Seipel’s article was the $20M that the City’s General Fund is already contributing to the RDA’s cash crunch. This is while we lay off more than 100 police officers and close libraries — and it will only get worse because the RDA borrowed tens of millions from e.g. the park fund. Who will pay for Autumn Parkway ? Unrelated to the cost of the ballpark, maybe, but the city agreed with the Sharks/SVSE to put it in *before* opening day.
LOL @ Cohn. He seems to have no clue as a columnist. Glad we have SuSlu…
LOL @ BetterSenseSJ: “wants to see the ballpark land developed into homes and office buildings instead.” Yes, we need more homes in a depressed real estate market and economy with office vacancy high already….idiots!
@ erw – is the $20 million from the settlement with SCC?
@erw,
The Autumn Parkway project has been planned for over a decade. It is vitally important as a future connector between 880 and the future Diridon area.
And guess what else? Its gonna happen regardless if a PRIVATELY FINANCED ballpark happens or not. I say it happens.
RM, can you explain more about this phantom $20 million from SJ general fund to RDA.
Beane is right. but Lowell is right too. I went to one game in 2005, as die hard fan that’s pathetic fan support. But that’s typical for me. in April of 06, I went to several games that month alone just to see Frank Thomas in an A’s uniform, I was a good fan that year. Frank Thomas was my reason to go see the A’s. then in 07 he was gone and I stopped going. When Carter and Taylor I’ll be going to a lot more games but until then, I can just watch at home. I pay for power, simple as that. That’s just what I like. I got a feeling that I’m not a lone in that. If they need to move to SJ because my preferences are too particular then so be it.
Hey guys, here’s a very thorough and most interesting article about our most pressing topic on the ESPN site. It covers it all and some, and some new quotes by some of the key people:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=bryant_howard&id=6665421
Don’t get too mad, LW Apologists, but Doug Boxer lays into Wolff:
Instead of Wolff having a seat at the table, several sources say government and (Oakland) civic officials are reluctant to discuss plans with Wolff for fear he would attempt to undermine any new site.
“Why would anyone associated with Oakland share any information regarding the plan to locate, approve and construct a baseball-only ballpark in Oakland with Mr. Wolff?” asked Doug Boxer, a civic booster deeply involved with efforts to keep the A’s in Oakland. “Since he announced he had no intention to pursue a ballpark in Oakland over three years ago, he has had nothing positive to say about the city that his team plays in. In fact, he has shown outright disdain for the city and the A’s fan base in Oakland including in 2009 taking his team’s holiday tour to almost every city in the Bay Area except Oakland. Further, any plans shared with Mr. Wolff would be either summarily dismissed or flayed publicly by him with little or no review or diligence. Every A’s fan is clear as to where Mr. Wolff would like his team to play — and it isn’t in Oakland.”
“Why would anyone associated with Oakland share any information regarding the plan to locate, approve and construct a baseball-only ballpark in Oakland with Mr. Wolff?”
The answer to that is easy. Because Wolff owns the A’s and needs his blessing for ANY plan, period.
@TonyD “phantom $20 million”
@anon(June 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM): “@ erw – is the $20 million from the settlement with SCC?”
I do not think so. That is still to come. As well as the repayment of the loan to the parkfund etc.
.
I am not sure where Ms. Seipel got that, but found this about M$20 on page 10 of the City Manager’s Budget message:
Click to access 01.BudgetMsg.PDF
“a revised forecast for the City General Fund reduced estimated Agency revenue to the City by another $19.8 million.” Note the word “another” !! And this “have resulted in fewer General Fund resources available for other City services”
@Anon–what if BS says “Sorry, Lewie, as much as I’d like to, I can’t give you San Jose, Bill Neukom scares the hell out of me. You have to make it work in Oakland.”
@JK – you haven’t answered my reply about the original question you posed: why should Oakland talk to LW. But, let’s go with you other hypothetical scenario. Remember what LW said, they tell him where he cannot build, but not where he must build. IMHO, if BS says no to SJ, then it’s back to Fremont all over again unless Oakland can make a case for itself, which it hasn’t.
@erw – revised forecast usually means that the revenue going in wasn’t as expected. it did not say that an additional expenditure was necessary. at least that’s my business take of it.
@Anon—it’s making it’s case with the VC site. Many hurdles to pull it off, but I’m the eternal optimist.
Fremont is not happening. The people of Fremont and businesses around that Pac Commons site don’t want the A’s and all the issues it brings. The sleepy burb wants to stay that way.
@anon: (June 17, 2011 at 4:32 PM)
please read those three paragraphs I referenced. Revenue from RDA to City was indeed not coming in as expected, therefore the City had to cut services (expenditures) such as libraries, cops, etc. to keep the budget balanced.
@ JK – I think there is much better chance of the A’s going to Fremont, then remaining in Oakland, that is unless you know of a public financing plan from the city? VC is a smokescreen, unless there is real money that will back it up.
@ erw – read in depth and it comprehensively listed why the deficit in revenue (see below). Basically, the city expected SJRDA revenue payment for certain programs, but with SJRDA closing up shop, that can no longer be allocated in the budget. It further goes on to specific how the loss is offset (not through sensationalizing “cops layoffs and libraries closures” as you stated”, but other means as well (buildilng closures, DA positions eliminated, etc.). If you want to blame someone for this shortfall in revenue, please write to Mr. Jerry Brown in Sacto.
“As has been previously reported, lower revenues for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency will
impact the City’s budget for 2011-2012. The Agency provides reimbursements to the City for those
City expenditures that are appropriately paid for by Redevelopment funds. The Agency’s budget
approved last November eliminated $5.4 million in reimbursements for the San Jos~ BEST and
Strong Neighborhoods Initiative programs. As the Agency’s tax-increment revenues declined due to
the economic downturn, a revised forecast for the City General Fund reduced estimated Agency
revenue to the City by another $19.8 million. This change reflects the elimination of all
reimbursements for Agency staff and City support services, the elimination Of all rent payments, and
elimination of $10.0 million of the $15.4 million Convention Center Lease payment. The City
support services for the Agency included: $4.5 million of SJRA support for the City Council and
appointees; $1.9 million for Economic Development, Planning, Public Works, Information
Technology, and Finance activities; and $893,000 of overhead revenue to the General Fund.
To offset the loss of Agency revenue, the 2011-2012 Proposed Budget reductions include the
elimination of eight positions in the City Attorney’s Office, 4.45 positions in the Planning, Building,
and Code Enforcement Department, 0.5 positions in the Public Works Department, and a reduction
in the City Attorney’s Office litigation services contract. However, the loss of reimbursement for
some of the unavoidable costs, such as the $10 million reduction in reimbursement for Convention
Center debt service payments, have resulted in fewer General Fund resources available for other
City services.”
@erw,
Why was revenue from RDA going to the city in the first place? All revenue from TIF should have stayed in house to pay off debt and daily functions of RDA.
If the general fund was getting funds from RDA, that’s a luxury they should be thankful for. Now saying that the RDA is shortchanging the general fund is a piss poor argument against the ballpark.
Nice reaching there erw ;o)..
@ erw – sorry couldn’t finish out my last sentence on there, but i think the statement you made that SJRA caused police layoff and library closures is wrong. Rather, the general fund was relying on SJRDA money in the general fund. And not the SJRDA adding additional expenditures on the general fund….this is standard accounting business speak…..
@jk “it’s making it’s case with the VC site.”
.
Oakland simply can’t make the case with the VC site. No matter how good the site might be if considered in a vacuum, under modern baseball economics a ballpark anywhere within the City of Oakland cannot generate enough corporate revenue to support a privately financed ballpark with AT&T Park right next door, period. Any reasonable person can see this; the City is simply trying to run out the clock.
.
“Fremont is not happening. The people of Fremont and businesses around that Pac Commons site don’t want the A’s and all the issues it brings.”
.
Fremont could easily happen. It has the essential element – access to the target market and revenue streams. Worst case, the A’s could simply buy the two big box stores. Unlike the Giants, they will bargain and sell if the price is right.