Coliseum City announcement postponed (Update 11/12: Measure B1 at 65.83%)

From commenter CFL:

Oakland City Administrator Deanna Santana and Assistant City Administrator in charge of Coliseum City Fred Blackwell had to postpone their 11/13/12 meeting with Save Oakland Sports. Save Oakland Sports will also postpone it’s announcement. We will reschedule this meeting to sometime before the beginning of 2013.

No reason was given, but I have to think this has to do with the fate of Measure B1, which has fallen short of passage so far. Without the $40 million in TOD funds earmarked for Coliseum City, the City of Oakland and Alameda County will have to scramble to figure out how to pick up a funding source to jumpstart the project. As of now, Coliseum City has to be considered stalled.

Update 5:00 PM – Support for Measure B1 has slipped further, now down to 64.85% voting yes. To pass, B1 would need to get an improbable 75% of the remaining 80,000 absentee ballots. In this light, it’s probably a good idea to cancel the appearance at the SOS meeting, since there’d be nothing to promote. However, an explanation of some kind would be welcome.

Update 11/10 5:30 PM – Alameda County’s Registrar didn’t take a break on Saturday, so we have new numbers. An additional 20,000 ballots were counted, and Measure B1 has made a solid comeback to finish the day with 65.31% voting Yes. The measure still needs 75% of the remaining 60,000 votes to pass.

Update 11/11 5:00 PM – Today the Registrar went into overtime, processing 37,000 ballots. That means they’ve counted 118,000 ballots since Wednesday. Yes on Measure B1 inched up further to 65.79%, which is encouraging. However, it appears that there are only 20-25,000 ballots left to count. Measure B1 would have to get 84% Yes votes among the remaining ballots to be counted in order to pass.

Update 11/12 6:00 PM – 12,000 more ballots were counted on Veterans Day. Measure B1 inched up a little to 65.83% approval. The bad news is that (if my math’s correct) all remaining votes would have to be Yes votes for B1 to pass.

44 thoughts on “Coliseum City announcement postponed (Update 11/12: Measure B1 at 65.83%)

  1. Normally I would think this would be a huge blow, but you can never know if this has any impact on the Blue Ribbon Committee and Selig.

  2. Also has to be considered stupid

  3. 64% and slipping??? This is not good for Coliseum City, darn just when i thought there was hope.. we will just have to stay tuned and see how this plays out…

    I do wonder how much pacient Mark Davis has … unless he is going to stay in Oakland ANYWAY….

  4. Great update. This site never disappoints. Personally, I don’t much care for Coliseum City, but I really would like to see the other B1 projects get funded.

  5. As one who has always believed (and posted it several times), Oakland will need some public financing to make stadiums happen. With the measure failing (likely failed) but probably getting 65+%, is there a way for stadium public financing to happen with a simple majority?
    If a simple majority is needed to get financing, I would think the NFL and MLB might be marginally encouraged. If a super majority will be needed to put public $$$ into a stadium project (and considering this vote was not a specific stadium vote therefore probably got more yes votes), I would think NFL and MLB are looking marginally less favorable on Oakland for stadium locations.

    • @TW – You only need the supermajority if there’s a tax increase. Even if public money is used and there is no tax, only a majority is required, as was the case with the 49ers and Giants.

  6. wow, I didnt even know that there was such a measure on the ballot in Alameda county. I read this blog every day and had no idea that this measure was on the ballot for people Alameda County. Until after it was defeated of course.

    • @jesse – It was mentioned in Monday’s pre-election post. Did you not read that?

      Frankly I have to wonder if Measure B1 would have gotten enough votes to pass if more people that supported Coliseum City knew about the impact. Oh well.

  7. @Jesse,
    This is of course a blog dedicated to news re a new A’s ballpark, not a voter information site. I’m sure if the measure passed/was passing RM would give it equal coverage. Not an Alameda county resident, but a lot of good projects won’t happen with this measure going down (see 84 expressway project).

  8. no, I didn’t read the blog post titled “Little at stake vis-à-vis stadia tomorrow”.

    • @jesse – Your anger is misdirected. You should be venting at the Coliseum Authority or Oakland and Alameda County officials for not having a backup plan. I sure didn’t see them having to go back to the drawing board because of Measure B1.

  9. When will we learn if Measure b1 will pass…

    Also what do you guys think… NIck Swisher back to Oakland??? Would we want him… i would.

  10. Thanks for the info RM.
    As mentioned in my last post, I think Oakland will have to kick in public $$$ for each stadium (and I assume it will have to be voted on by the public). I just don’t see how MLB or the NFL build the whole thing with their own $$$ given the metrics. Which begs the question, will some Oakland Pols see that as an issue to fight for? Or do they simply leave it alone and in the hands of fate, and hope the NFL and MLB simply want a stadium in Oakland so bad they will pay for everything anyway? My hunch is MLB is 100% certain no public $$$ = no stadium. The logic of my assumption is based on the indecision of the BRC. If they are for full private financing, wouldn’t they have already gone with an Oakland site and ended the SJ process???
    For the NFL? Maybe not as certain but it can’t be that far off MLB’s position. The revenue potential just seems (potentially) too modest and uncertain to be spending billion dollars of their own $$$. What are the Raiders looking at… 50 million off the top each year for 25 years to pay for the Stadium? Can that possibly add up to a good business plan to the bean counters on the Raiders/in the NFL?

  11. @TW
    Your right even Oakland pols could be against public funding for stadiums… and this is really the reason why Oakland has been the city last to the stadium party…… Oakland feels that they dont have to pay for a new stadium and they still are like that in 2012….its sad for Lew Wolff cause san jose and cc are threatned, the warriors are almost there but just need the sf pols to give them the green light, Raiders want to stay, but will the city pay???

  12. Tony, good call on SR 84 — aka the east-west connector.
    ML, I don’t know if the Alameda County portion of the link between Warm Springs and the Santa Clara County line expected B1 funds. But that’s a small portion of the extension so it’ll get done one way or another. On the other hand, I don’t think Coliseum City is dependent on Measure B1. The transit funds would help that huge project a bit, but not a lot.

  13. Maybe I should explain my last comment. Transit Oriented Development money funds projects that build housing, usually high-density housing, and related retail, close to public transit hubs. It doesn’t fund new ballparks. IMO.

  14. So I b1 passes how would the 40 mil contribute to any project regarding raiders or athletics?

  15. @berry,
    Just my opinion, but perhaps it could entail a new pedestrian bridge from BART or improvements to the station itself. Don’t really see a need for roadway improvements at the Coli, as I feel what’s currently in place is adequate.
    Kind of agree with the sentiment that the $40 million won’t make or break any Raiders stadium proposal at the Coli, but having it available certainly won’t hurt.
    Personally pulling for this measure to pass; to many good projects that need to get built.

  16. @Berry

    I would bring Nick back and move him to 1st…

  17. Thank u tone. Well…a good Sunday to u all

  18. The $40 million shouldn’t be discounted too easily. Someone will have to pay for improvements to the Coliseum grounds and the area around the BART station. If the teams and leagues are expected to pay for the stadia, you can damn sure expect that they’ll want the city/county to pay for their share of the project. Skin in the game is important. The issue is now whether finding money for TOD takes away from funds to that could assist in building the stadium, making the project more expensive in the process.

  19. RM,
    OT: any idea when this months owners meeting will be held (or if it will be held)? Just curious if you’ve heard anything.

  20. Heck, skin in the game isn’t just important. In the case of the NFL it is a necessity. If the city/municipality doesn’t have skin in the game the team doesn’t get any of the NFL G4 funds for their stadium. Which means even less money for the Raiders to play with.

  21. If your stadium project depends on the voters to approve a tax hike, doesn’t that pretty much guarantee that your stadium project is 100% boned from the get-go?

  22. Spartan, providing public funding didn’t seem to phase Santa Clara.

  23. @Tony D – Wednesday/Thursday in Chicago.

    @Dan – Santa Clara’s stadium referendum didn’t involve a general tax hike.

  24. Never said it did.

  25. @Dan – Sierra was specifically asking about tax hikes. You chose to go off in a different direction.

  26. @RM,
    thanks. Rheinsdorf’s home town! 😉
    In a saner world, 65.79% saying YES to a measure would be a landslide victory……

  27. The website itself mentions the teams and the Coliseum.

  28. B1 funds are supposed to be spent, more or less, as allocated in the Alameda County Transportation Expendisture Plan. Attach. “A” to the plan lays out some detail. A footnote in Attach. A breaks down the north-county plan:
    “Preliminary allocation of North County Funds subject to change by Alameda CTC: Coliseum BART Area ($40 M), Broadway Valdez ($20 M), Lake Merritt ($20 M), West Oakland ($20 M), Eastmont Mall ($20 M), 19th Street ($20 M), MacArthur ($20 M), Ashby ($18.5 M), Berkeley Downtown ($20 M).”
    By way of comparison, BART plans to open up its west-facing Union City station so that it is accessible from the east side, too. Price is more than $20M for that limited work.

  29. Well looks like that 40 mil to contribute is gone. What’s sad is that other projects are effected as well. Man California politics are so annoying…everybody wants a cut to get things moving.

  30. I think we can start with a presumption that your math is correct, ML. Your research, as always, is very impressive, too.

  31. @EB yes, but the coliseum or the teams are not prominent in most of the advertisement.

    That these measures will always require 2/3 votes is what dooms cities in their efforts to develop revenues to provide needed infrastructure development. Prop 13 wins again.

  32. I wonder if Oakland will be a better city without the debt of sports teams… i feel that there have always been city pols in Oakland similar to Jerry Brown that are not sports guys.. and it puts us fans in the middle of it… maybe Oakland can get another baseball and football team to come to Oakland in 15-25 years. but just a thought maybe Oakland could do without the sports…. lets Frisco and San Jo have em.

  33. Oakland certainly has better things to spend $100+ million on (cops for starters) than any new stadia. Downtown Oakland will keep getting better with or without the A’s. I would prefer to have a new A’s stadium near downtown/JLS but Oakland’s first second and third priorities at this point have to be crime, crime and crime. Cut that back to normal for a city its size, and the city will flourish. Oakland has everything else going for it.

  34. @Tim

    I understand Oakland tackling crime, but cmon after incidents like Oscar Grant and just OPD being a very shady police dept… i think Oakland should clean their cops first as well as the streets… and its not like crime is happening in montclair or piedmont, its the same places from 73rd to West Oakland to the dubs and so on…. but yeah i afgree with most what u said.

    Also tim, i have a feeling that Raiders will stay, just because that new santa clara stadium was built soley for the 49ers… and i havent heard shit from Dublin… o well.

  35. At least we are not Marlins fans….

  36. Tim. Ditto what you said.

  37. re: maybe Oakland can get another baseball and football team to come to Oakland in 15-25 years. but just a thought maybe Oakland could do without the sports…. lets Frisco and San Jo have em.

    …the time has arrived for Oakland to replace its existing facilities if it wants to keep the teams. But the city simply can’t get it done. $2 billion for new stadiums and an arena from a struggling city of 400,000, with no help from any state sources? Not seeing how it happens. And prodding the teams to spend their own money has produced zip – the three teams aren’t interested.

  38. @ Mike 2

    I actually on the owners of the Marlins side… he got rid of a bad manager and bad contracts.. miami has to build a good team the boring way… but they will be a lot better team that way… Miami signed Jose Reyes to sell to the fan base… sry Miami fans.. this is not the Heat.. you guys have to win with team players not superstars… (look how our A’s do it)…

    but love miami especially the women… cant wait to go back.

  39. berry, Oscar Grant got shot by a BART cop and Piedmont has its own police force (and fire and ambulance service) which responds to every 911 call instantly, usually with two cars and four cops. Oakland cops are spread so thin they only respond to extreme 911 calls, and then you’re lucky if you get a single cop in one car.

  40. Cops are cops.. but thank you xoot for pointing out that it was a BART cop… to me same thing, how they deal with young minorities same result….. but anyway been a preety slow news day.. just following up on free agency for the A’s and other teams… well hopefully some positive stadium news comes up…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.