Today’s hearing was brief at only 20 minutes. Attorneys for the City/A’s and S4SJ/Giants made their cases to Judge Joseph H. Huber. Quick rehash: City/S4SJ requests a deposition of the lawsuit petitioners (S4SJ and 5 individuals) to determine if they have standing. S4SJ/Giants believe that because of CEQA law, standing is already there. A secondary argument is whether or not the business relationship the Giants have with S4SJ represents a conflict of interest.
Judge Huber will decide if the deposition request will be granted. The decision will be made in the next couple of days. Regarding the business relationship, the judge noted that many cases involve outright competitors even if a legal challenge was first made on non-competitive grounds. I suspect that he’s leaning to allow the case to move forward without narrowing the scope to just CEQA issues. As for the deposition, we’ll just have to wait for his ruling.
Again, I have to question the wisdom of the City striking the discounted land deal with the A’s. If the land option were granted at “fair market value” S4SJ wouldn’t have been able to add that issue to the case. Assuming that the redevelopment land transfer legality matter were resolved in the near future, that would’ve left only CEQA and the referendum question as the main tenets of the case. As it stands it’s a muddled mess, with the judge wondering what the next steps are as there are no additional hearings or procedural items scheduled at this point. The wheels of justice only turn so swiftly.
—–
Side note: The attorney for the City/A’s mentioned that one of the lawsuit petitioners actually supported the A’s move to San Jose during a previous hearing. Curious.
newballpark.org 
Talk about a case of “there’s no there there…” Even a discounted land deal isnt breaking any laws or violating any existing codes: San Jose provides breaks to developers, businesses all the time. If a certain group of “citizens” don’t like the arrangement, guess what: that’s tough! As for challenging to thorough EIR, again…see first quote in first sentence. (Yawn..)
@ML: thanks for taking the time to track something like this, however mundane it might be. While a lot of us, myself very much included, like to blow hot air on your message board, things like this are where substantive issues surrounding the A’s getting a new stadium will be actually be decided. So we should pause from our arguing to thank you for taking the time to give us recaps, even if its just boring legal proceedings. As most of us know, those boring legal proceedings are where the real decisions get made, and sadly not on internet message boards (as much as we’d like to change that…).
.
See you all at the Coliseum this weekend/next week for the hugely important close to this great season!
JH510 said it all. To all those going to this weekend games have fun and let’s catch the Rangers.
The Tampa Bay newspaper has some renders of the new Tampa Bay Ray stadium as proposed by a developer not affiliated with the baseball team. I would definitely call the design interesting.
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/photo_galleries/carillon_stadium/
@JH510 – “As most of us know, those boring legal proceedings are where the real decisions get made”
.
I agree. This legal proceeding is important, not to determine which party is correct in their specific discovery dispute, but because of the pressure (albeit subtle at this point) it applies to the overall dispute between the A’s and Giants regarding San Jose. I don’t think it’s necessarily a coincidence that this week we’ve heard rumblings of action by Selig on the A’s/San Jose issue. If I’m Selig, I don’t want evidence coming out that shows the SF Giants encouraged or facilitated the S4SJ lawsuit. It could complicate an already touchy situation.
Interesting design for the Rays new stadium, noticed how it is proposed in an urban area. I have a feeling that even if the Rays get a new stadium people will not come.
Rays stadium looks like a hotel/resort
Bit OT, but could potentially have an impact on the Raiders… the LA stadium has been granted approval by the LA city council completing the political approval process. Construction could potentially start in the spring if a team agrees to move there. And of course the Raiders along with the Rams and Chargers remain prime targets given their aging/inadequate stadiums and fading prospects in their current markets.
Obviously all the named plaintiffs will get deposed; no reason why they should all get deposed first on standing issues only, but I’ve seen less reasonable rulings. Overall the discovery dispute is garden-variety early-round litigation wrestling. I didn’t see the opposition brief, so the exact issues before the court yesterday aren’t real clear. The case itself remains minor. The real legal disputes will follow mlb’s decision–if that ever arrives.
“The real legal disputes will follow mlb’s decision.” In your dreams suit! Yeah, the Giants will sue MLB or the A’s (even if the MLB Constitution says they can’t)…or is it the phony DA of Frisco who’s gonna sue? City of Oakland? There’s no crying in baseball suit and….GO A’S!!!
Tony, you need to quit your hardcore rah-rahing. It makes the SJ supporters look bad. I think xoot is right, there will be lawsuits after the decision, but only time will tell how ‘real’ they are.
@LS,
I hear yah. While I don’t apologize for my SJ “rah-rahing” I’ll agree to tone it down. That said, I do have a problem with folks encouraging legal action if the “decision” doesn’t go their way (no need to mention names). And assuming MLB reveals that its SJ for the A’s (which is looking likely) that will mean the Giants are on board as well. Taking into consideration current frivolous litigation and the MLB Constitution, what possible legal action could be taken after the decision is revealed? (Last sentence is what I was really trying to get at; sorry for rant)
Calm Tone Deaf, calm down. See how it plays out. The ninth inning will be the decision. They may go extras.
Great game from the A’s yesterday, btw. Congrats.