Howard Terminal maritime bids rejected, what’s next?

On Thursday, two weeks after the Board of Commissioners at the Port of Oakland was expected to reject three maritime use bids at Howard Terminal, the Board finished the job. The issue was tabled during the previous meeting when the Board decided to hold off making a decision while coal shipping company Bowie Resources Partners provided additional information. Despite the delay, the decision was expected to be a formality, since Bowie’s bid raised serious environmental concerns and the other two bids were considered incomplete.

With that procedural move out of the way, the possibility of a change to a non-maritime use, such as a ballpark, grows. East Bay Citizen’s Steven Tavares noted that the ballpark concept was not discussed during the meeting, but is the obvious elephant in the room. The Port has created an ad hoc committee to discuss long-term uses for Howard Terminal, though it meets in closed session next week. I figure that the committee will need to have more open meetings in the future to avoid potential Brown Act violations. There’s a good chance that the committee will talk ballpark, as well as the ENA (exclusive negotiating agreement) that ballpark booster group OWB has offered to sign in a show of progress for MLB.

However, the maritime use question is not done just because the Board rejected bids. The Port has to keep pushing to get some use out of Howard Terminal while the process to convert to a different use takes place, since they’re losing $10 million per year for the next several years due to HT’s vacancy. Plus the Port and City of Oakland are not in full control of the final land use decision, because they’re considered trustees of waterfront lands controlled in the end by the State of California. The State Lands Commission, which makes the final decisions on these matters, gave some very clear insight into their process in a letter of support for the Giants’ lawsuit over a height restriction ballot measure under consideration in San Francisco.

However, the State’s grant of these lands to the City did not end California’s supervision and control of these lands. California still remains the ultimate trustee of these granted lands. The actual use made of the lands granted by California to its municipal trustee is a matter of statewide importance and one that directly impacts the Commission’s jurisdiction. The courts have described California’s continuing role by stating that, “Upon grant to a municipality subject to a public trust, and accompanied by a delegation of the right to improve the harbor and exercise control over harbor facilities, the lands are not placed entirely beyond the supervision of the state, but it may, and indeed has a duty to, continue to protect the public interests.”

As such, the City serves as a trustee, both as to the lands themselves and as to the revenue derived from trust lands. The trust lands are not held by the City in a municipal or proprietary capacity, but rather for the benefit of all the people of the State of California. The legislative grant created a trust in which the City is the fiduciary/trustee, the State is the truster, and all the people of the State are the beneficiaries. The legal consequence of this trust relationship is that the proper use of the tidelands and tideland revenues is a statewide affair. While the day-to-day management of these public trust lands was granted to the City, the State, through the Commission, retains trustee and oversight authority over the City’s administration of these lands, and the Legislature remains the ultimate trustor.

The exact same language can be used for Howard Terminal: the City/Port is the trustee, the State has authority, the Legislature is the trustor. It’s not hard to see legislation being required to make any Howard Terminal conversion final. There’s already a precedent in the Brooklyn Basin project (a.k.a Oak to Ninth), when Don Perata got a bill passed in 2004 that allowed for a land exchange that made the project possible. If overall Bay Area Port capacity is to be diminished some significant amount, a plan must be enacted to make up for the lost capacity. Such plans would have to be shaped by the SLC and the BCDC, which has its own regional seaport management plan.

In other words, don’t expect this process to be quick. It’s doable, as was the case in San Francisco, but Howard Terminal’s conversion will have to take place within the context of it benefiting the entire Bay Area and the State of California, not just Oakland or some developers. That’s only fair.

148 thoughts on “Howard Terminal maritime bids rejected, what’s next?

  1. okay, I changed my estimate. 10 billion and I can solve these problems
    1 billion- buy the A’s
    1 billion- buy the HT land from the port and pay off various lobbyists to silence the environmentalists
    1 billion- new a’s stadium

    1 billion- buy the Raiders
    1 billion- new Raiders stadium (Coliseum footprint)

    1 billion- buy the Warriors
    1 billion- new Warriors arena (next to A’s at HT, bay bridge in the background etc.)
    2 billion- infrastucture costs (bart access, paying off politicians, etc.)

    hey look, a billion left to spare. I’ll put a statue to ML in the middle of Diridon.

  2. @Yee Yee Wow and 1bill left, you are the Man, or Woman.

  3. Oakland was a successful town in the early days due to rail, redwoods (which helped build S.F) and the port. So I kinda understand how the port should be used for port busily, however its just Howard Terminal this a unique situation for Oakland’s only gift to the A’s is H.T… again as I stated all Wolff/Fisher should finance is the ballpark its self…everything must come from city of Oakland (clearing All legal hurdles) and or a generous investors looking to get some naming rights (Clorox,etc) to pay for clean up….in a timely matter..if all goes according to plan maybe 2 yrs we should it all be in the bagto proceed. S.F Giants will be happy, Oak and MLB will all be happy

  4. @harry- u really believe the gints want a duplicate of their ballpark within view of their own? They are well aware HT will never work- so sure- they’ll support it because they know it’s either one More step to delaying the A’s getting a new park or ideally out of the Bay Area entirely-

  5. Doesn’t matter GoSf. ..cough!! I mean GoA’s …it would give Oakland the newer ballpark and therefore nothing the Giants could do about it unless they argue to MLB that they need the TR rights to Alameda county as well….

  6. @harry- nothing they could do about it- it’s on the waterfront- no different than the lawsuits they have going in SJ u can bet they would take the same approach in Oakland- always amazes me that the Oakland only crowd has never fully understood the gints true intentions-

  7. @GoA’sharry Your correct, I believe the San Fracisco Giants would love nothing more, then to see the A’s leave the Bay Area. I think that is why they helped table a vote on an ownership group, in the 90’s that was open to building in Oakland, I realize that group did not meet other financial requirements, but it was also reported at the time, the Giants may not have wanted them to build in Oakland. I think the only reason the Giants are ok with the A’s building in Oakland (if that is even true), is simply because its not San Jose, but if MLB says to the Giants “Hay no other market is ready for a team, so they have to stay in the Bay Area” I think most would agree, that no other market is ready yet, on top of that you may have problems with Portland because of Seattle, and you may have problems in San Anton because of the two Texas teams, so if you were the Giants and it had to be in Oakland or San Jose, which do you think they would chose, because we know Wolff (unless SJ lawsuite goes well), may never get to choice.

  8. And for brighter stadium news around California, FC Republic got the green light to build a soccer stadium at Cal Expo.

  9. @GoA’sharry Sorry: I should have said “Wolff may never get to make that choice.” I here people say the Oakland-Only people should watch what they wish for, because if its not San Jose it will be out of the Bay Area (and that could be true), but if it cant work in Oakland (which I dont believe), or persons dont want it to work in OaklandAC-CC, weather that is Wolff, the Giants, or MLB, the A’s will be out of the Bay Area, just as true so its the Oakland and San Jose-Only people, that should watch what they wish for, because we may all just get what we wished for in the end.


    Oakland only crowd (Mayor Quan and other Oakland residents that are un informed)= casual SF Giants fans if A’s left the bay area, ignore them. ..lets root for the A’s to win it all this season to make ppl forget about the SF giAnts. ..I do have to say lets talk uniforms..I personally like it when the A’s uniform is darker (ex. The grey, green, white yellow fit…be nice for them to switch it up…I really am not a fan of yellow..

  11. This HT nonsense is being used by the Oakland only Camp to convince MLB to delay and put off from having to make a decision on San Jose. This all could be moot if the lawsuit process show signs of moving in a favorable direction for San Jose.

  12. @ harry H.T. may never happen for the A’s (we still dont know if it can be built on), its still a long way to go, Wolff would still need to be convinced to build there, or sale to someone that would, but it would sure be a really nice site to have a ballpark on, I dont think there is a nicer site in the Bay Area (thats under some sort of consideration), anyway one step at a time, and for all you San Jose folks, I would still love for it to be there if it cant be in Oakland.

  13. IIpec You may be correct, but this nonsense as you call it (H.T.), while it has not gotten to far, it has gotten a little further then many would have thought, some of whom are waiting on that other nonsense, the San Jose vs MLB lawsuite.

  14. The odds of building at HT are way less than the odds of the SJ lawsuit being successful in forcing a resolution to the stalemate- it has nothing to do with convincing LW to build there and everything to do with financial feasibility

  15. @GoA’s It has to do with a lot of things, most of which none of us know, and you may be correct the San Jose vs MLB lawsute may have better odds (even though, I think its weak), but what I find odd is every time Oakland makes any sort of progress its put down as nonsense (no matter how little), I can count on someone here to put it down. As I said befor I would love to see what people would say (here), if it was Oakland sueing MLB, not that I think the lawsuite is without marit, but if Oakland was doing it, I think it would be viewed with just as much nonsense as H.T.

  16. @LSN- the costs of developing HT are well documented- I’m sure you were also excited by VC and we all know what happened there- start the EIR for HT and let’s see how committed Oakland is to this site- and btw- figure out where to $400 or so million is going to come from to keep the raiders at CC- remember- JQ said they would sign. On by June- unfortunately MD has no idea what she is talking about

  17. @ llpec (756),

    “HT nonsense…to convince MLB to delay…a decision on San Jose” I believe the powers at MLB are a LOT smarter than that. If not then we’re all truly @#$%!…

  18. @GoA’s Thank you, but you have not said anything that I (and most here), dont already know, like I said we are all banking on a little nonsense, even ML said the case was weak, so hopfuly some of this nonsense weather San Jose’s or Oakland’s will pay off.

  19. Sorry LSN- not sure of your point- imagine that- show me the study that shows HT is a feasible site- ahh- got it- there isn’t one- and how quickly you have jumped from CC to HT- yup- as only the Oakland crowd can do-

  20. @GoA’s BTW I’am excited anytime Oakland or San Jose dose somthing that may save the A’s, un-like many of the Oakland or San Jose-Only folks, as well as some of the folks that comment here (IMHO)…

  21. @LSN- pardon the cynic in me- wtf has Oakland done since 1995 to keep the A’s other than continue to throw out sites- none of which are backed up by an EIR or a financial plan that makes sense. Anyone who cheers Oakland’s latest flavor of the day is doing no more than indirectly supporting the A’s exit out of the Bay Area-

  22. @ GoA’s I have not jumped to anything but to defend, what I see as people putting down anything Oakland dose (no matter how little), thats the thing GoA’s I will jump un-like some of us, at Dirdon (or anywhere in San Jose), CC, Fremont, 580 Tri-City, hell for that matter Sacramento, and even H.T. in the unlikley case that it becomes somthing. Check the posts (if you would like to) I have tried to be excited about all of them, again un-like others (IMHO)

  23. @ GoA’s Pardon me as well, its true Oakland has had more chances then any city should, and it sucks that while Oakland pisses every chace away San Jose cant get one, anyway I should chill a little, sorry if I came off as rude.

  24. The MLB committee that reviewed all the proposed Oakland ballpark sites did not find any of them to be acceptable, for one reason or another. In fact, I believe the HT site was given the lowest evaluation. The red tape process to fully come to a definitive conclusion about the feasibility of building a ballpark at HT could take at least several years. On this fact alone, HT is the perfect proposed ballpark venue choice to use as a delaying tactic. In effect, so as to put off MLB from giving approval for the A’s to move to San Jose.

  25. @IIpec Your right about that, even if it was not a stall on the part of Oakland it may take 5-8 years, and I not sure Oakland would go through this much if they did not think, it was the site MLB wanted, not they have really done that much, or that H.T. is even doable, but with Doug Boxer being on the OWB group, I would think he would know enough not to join such a group, if he did not think it had a chance, point being this really could delay things for San Jose, weather these people believe in the project or not.

  26. Sigh at times I personally would tell Wolff to tell MLB that due to circumstances the cheapest least headache option would to build a ballpark next to Oracle Arena…. it would be kinda cool to see Raiders, Warriors and A’s each with their own home old or new

  27. The A’s best chance to stay in the Bay Area is a successful SJ lawsuit- absent that they will be on their way out- once again- HT has been looked at by MLB and others and is not considered viable- if Doug Boxer believes it is then why hasn’t the EIR started to prove to everyone that it is…what’s the point in waiting?

  28. @llpc, you wrote:

    “The MLB committee that reviewed all the proposed Oakland ballpark sites did not find any of them to be acceptable, for one reason or another. In fact, I believe the HT site was given the lowest evaluation. ”

    Citation please. I doubt you can find one b/c the MLB committee never rendered any opinion publicly. The only site that has MLB has rendered an opinion on publicly is the San Jose site. And we all know what they said about that site.

    “The red tape process to fully come to a definitive conclusion about the feasibility of building a ballpark at HT could take at least several years.”

    What are you talking about? I think you are confusing “feasibility” with “regulatory approvals.” Every development in CA, be it a sports venue, a residential project or a commercial project, needs approvals for various govt agencies. The ballpark proposals are no different. If indeed you mean “regulatory approvals,” then you can’t point to one site out there that won’t take “years” to get done — even your beloved SJ site, which will most definitely be the subject of litigation, even if the anti-trust exemption is thrown out.

    “On this fact alone, HT is the perfect proposed ballpark venue choice to use as a delaying tactic.”

    As can assure you that no one involved in the HT proposal views it as a delay tactic.

  29. @ss- what’s “delaying” initiating the EIR process if the site is so viable? Brew- this same group of folks- Doug boxer et all also said VC was a great site… And we all know what happened there

  30. I’d say 5 years of investigating by MLB and no site selection tells us all we need to know about viable sites in Oakland: They can’t find any. And even if they could, the financial situation remains the same: an ownership group is needed that is willing to take 100% of the risks (building a $500 million ballpark privately with minimal corporate support) while the city takes none. Once again, which bank is going to underwrite a project like this given these risks? None.

  31. Just love it when someone comes into this site thinking that they’re smart.

    @SS, Lew Wolff was quoted last year as saying that the A’s could not find a viable site in the East Bay for a new ballpark and that “baseball” (MLB) had come to the same conclusion. If that doesn’t tell you that the committee has ruled against HT (Oakland) than I don’t know what will.

    Second, MLB hasn’t rendered any opinion on the SJ site (Diridon), ie you’re straight up lying with that one. What MLB rendered an opinion on was the A’s relocation proposal at the time (for financial reasons). Nothing says Wolff/A’s can’t submit another relocation proposal. This was in the news by the way, but go ahead and choose to ignore if you must.

    re HT, I do agree with you that it’s not a delaying tactic. What it really is is Oakland pols blowing smoke up everyone’s a$$ with a pie in the sky ballpark proposal. Unless you got $1.5 billion and some change, you will never be right about HT. In conclusion; Got Victory Court?

  32. Tony D., whatever. No need to dignify your rant but here you go…

    You’re quoting Lew Wolff as to what MLB has decided. Don’t you think that MLB would communicate directly with the City of Oakland to tell it that there are no sites in Oakland that work. Sorry nice try.

    Second, go here: I guess the LA Times lies too.

    Third, which Oakland pol is “blowing smoke” on HT. As far as I can tell, this is being driven by the private sector.

  33. @ss, If I were you, I would put all my effort to convincing Oakland pols and business leaders to take a serious second look at the Victory Court locale for a possible A’s new ballpark. If the A’s are to remain in Oakland, that site offers the most potential for a successful new ballpark, without the extensive drawbacks that the other proposed sites seem to have.

  34. The San Jose proposal has the same problem as the Oakland proposal: No public money. Was this the reason the proposal as submitted was rejected? We can only speculate. At least San Jose has a valid downtown site while Oakland does not. We know a ballpark can be privately financed in San Jose. Not likely in Oakland. Hey, Stan – what’s your take on Mark Davis working diligently with Oakland and its private Coliseum City investors for years now and still, no stadium deal? He’s not heard a word in 5 months, apparently. Is this what “working with the City of Oakland” gets the team owners as far a new facilities? Just stall, stall, stall and more years at the decaying Coliseum? Mark Davis’s patience are wearing thin.

  35. The A’s said that the HT site’s cost would be at least $1 bil. (including hazmat cleanup costs and infrasture problems and building the ballpark)- that estimate seems credible. Furthermore the A’s aren’t for sale. If they were, one could conclude that they might be sold for nearly $1 bil. or more – that is what their value would appproximately balloon to if they were playing in San Jose with a new baseball-only ballpark, and that’s likely how the A’s could conclude their actual value to be. The HT site seems very pricey and the team isn’t for sale anyways. The CC site appears to be the only way the A’s could stay in Oakland.

  36. I agree with duffer.. im a pro sports pro “some public funding” type of guy and im a Oakland sports fan. I love football first then baseball. Coliseum City field is the quickest easiest way to have a newballpark asap.

    The longer the A’s and Raiders share makes it uncomfortable but to Ray Ratto point ” a baseball field really makes the Raiders lose?” Have to agree with Ratto…Raiders need to win first to get leverage on a private and public tip

  37. @Marine Layer

    ML. .u have to read and touch on Ray Ratto article on Raiders Mark Davis lacking leverage….

    All these yeara I thought the teams had the advantage over city of Oakland…but its really the other way around…no wonder Oakland can get away with stalling. “WHERE ARE THE RAIDERS AND A’S GOING TO GO???

    Unless Lew Wolff is brave enough to move the A’s to Sacramento and Mark Davis sends the Raiders to Santa Clara or L.A ….and by next year….Jean Quan and Oakland HAVE THE ADVANTAGE. I call Lew Wolff and Mark Davis bluff…either move out the Coliseum. ..or stay put and dare I say….gulp…private invest ur new or old upgrade venues at Coliseum City. ..its time to start talking about stadium construction instead of moving

  38. outside of LA, where can Mark Davis move the Raiders? Portland? Salt Lake City?

  39. @harry–keep in mind that the A’s playing at the Coli still nets LW $30+M of annual welfare—why would he build in a place that doesn’t pencil out financially and give up this $30M—franchise value continues to grow (near 1B now)…LW realizes he is not going to be the one running the A’s when this thing finally will be his son and grandson who is currently in college. Also, he wants a 10 year lease at the exiting Coli–Larry Reed supports this–believes this is the best approach—should tell you what’s going on with the Raiders and CC–

    MLB an NFL won’t force their owners to make bad financial investments and run the risk of another McCourt type of situation…so unless the investment pencils out (which to date hasn’t been proven) neither will be in Oakland much longer–MD does have options–he can sell a controling interest and not have to deal with the day to day headaches and make a pretty nice profit for himself…expect his Mom to have to pass before he does this but it is a very good option for him.

  40. @ SS,

    This fella doesn’t need to “try” because I come straight at yah with the truth 😉 Don’t like it, don’t read any further.

    The only thing MLB is communicating with Oakland on IS THE LEASE AT THE COLI. That’s it! See MLB threatening to take the A’s across the Bay because The O felt they had “leverage” in the lease game.

    As for MLB rejecting the A’s relocation proposal back in June, you’re choosing to completely misinterpret that development for one of your own liking. Read Susan Slusser’s SFGate take on that news if you want the truth of the matter. Just a rejection of the relocation proposal at the time, not San Jose in its entirety.

    HT being driven by the private sector? What the hell are you talking about? What have the Clorox’s of the world offered for HT other than some prep rallies with cool ballpark renderings? I’ll make it easy for you SS; GOT MONEY? And lot’s of it? (this was way to easy)

  41. If Oakland’s plan is for Wolff to sell the team at a steep discount to Oakland people, don’t count on it. MLB is not going to allow a franchise to be sold at a bargain-basement price, thereby devaluing all franchises. Whoever wants to buy the A’s and put them at Howard Terminal, at least, had better have at least $1.7 billion on hand to buy the team and build the stadium. Drop a couple hundred million off that to put them in the Coliseum parking lot.

  42. @pjk

    I beileve the Raiders and A’s ownership are to scared to do anything…both have yet to show any balls by moving the teams to L.A or on the bright side I as a pro Oakland fan wont have to worry about the Raiders and A’s leaving for awhile…see u at the Coliseum

  43. Howard Terminal from the HOK study in 2001.

    In 2001 HT was 517M! It is 2014, the cost has only gone up since that time. It was estimated 180M is need for traffic improvements, parking, site acquisition, and site factor.

    This site was further inland than the one being proposed today that needs environmental cleanup which which puts the cost even higher.

    Therefore a Howard Terminal ballpark could cost between 600M-700M in this day and age. It baffles me on how people think this is even an option. You wonder why Wolff refuses to look at it again because he knows the issues full well and disclosed them to the BRC.

    Wolff is a real estate guru, if he cannot build in the East Bay no one can do it. He understands all the intricacies of building massive structures and his 227 pages of notes he submitted to the BRC on why the East Bay is not feasible speaks volumes on the issues.

    Building at the Coliseum is a non-starter because of the parking issues that would arise and the Warriors/Raiders would be complaining all day long. Wolff would need the Raiders and Warriors to leave in order take full advantage of the site.

    Wolff has one option and its San Jose, not HT, CC, or Fremont for that matter.

  44. @pjk

    Nice chart. If my math is right the culmative rate of inflation would be 32.2%.

    450M-500M Stadium Costs
    234M-240M Other Costs

    Estimated costs 680M-750M+ – any lawsuits

  45. The problem with the HOK study is that it came out in 2001. In 2002 the California Dept. Toxic Substance Control began releasing reports saying that Howard Terminal cleanup from breaking the “caps” would be at a minimum of $100 million. That was in 2002 dollars. Site excavation making HT ready for a stadium would require breaking the “caps”. The “caps” are defined as anything from concrete to asphalt making the site usable for port operations. There’s no way around breaking the “caps”.

    Also as Sid pointed out, the HOK site was further inland; which currently being mentioned as away of avoiding BCDC jurisdiction. The problem there is the further inland you go at Howard Terminal the more environmental hurdles you have. That’s where PG&E’s Gas Load Center is located, that’s where the gas line infrastructure is located and that’s where the highest level of contaminated soil is found.

    If Howard Terminal was just a port, cool, awesome, let’s go! But Howard Terminal was a gas mine starting in 1900. A full 70 years before the EPA was even founded. Howard terminal is so much more than a money issue that even if the money was there and all the agencies were on board this would be a 10 year project before a shovel hits the ground. IMO, if HT ever had a shot its time has passed. The sooner the Coliseum becomes Oakland’s sole focus the better.

  46. @ Yee Yee

    Don’t forget about London. I have several friends in England who would definitely go to 8-10 NFL games year as long as the home team is not the Jags. The Raiders have more and better options than the A’s do when it comes to possible franchise relocation. They just need to get back to their motto first before they decide to do anything stupid and relocate.

  47. @muppet- great insight as always- so what, in your opinion, is driving any discussion around HT in Oakland? What you outlined MLB/LW are well aware of- is HT the “delay” site in the event the A’s get the boot from the Coli for a raiders stadium?

  48. @GoA’s – Nothing I said makes building at HT impossible. The reality of the situation makes it incredibly unlikely but the hurdles aren’t so high they can’t be cleared – technically speaking. Until the mainstream sports media begins covering the fine points the way we discuss here the mayor can say whatever she wants. She spent all of 2011 promoting Victory Court when the project’s funding died early on in the year. She went unchecked by the mainstream sports media then and can do the same now. Same with those in the private sector pushing the possibility. They can say what they what and continue to push the narrative of a possible stadium simply by saying “we don’t know the true costs yet, but we’d like to find out.” Because that’s technically true. Timeline be damned.

    Promoting HT is easy positive PR if Bay Area talking heads continue to focus on the talking points instead of the fine points. And as long as it remains technically possible, no matter how remote or how many times Lew Wolff says no, there will be no shortage of Oakland boosters promoting the site. A lot of us have been dreaming of a new stadium in Oakland for 2 decades now. That’s not an easy thing to let go of.

  49. @muppet- thx- your last sentence summarizes it well- bottom line is hopefully MLB is not as willfully ignorant as the main stream press- right now that may be hard to believe

  50. They could fill in the Bay and put a stadium on the landfill, too. Might cost $2 billion and be completely unfeasible but it’s doable, right?

  51. @pjk

    Re: public funding

    What will happen when the SF Giants and San Jose Sharks will need public funding for their upgrades???? Will we sit back and let the “fieldofschemers” push the Sharks and Giants (again) out the bay area.

    Memo to the NFL, MLB and NBA…follow the Sacramento Kings formula and starting buying off judges and pols NOW.. because now the Raiders, A’s, Chargers and Angels all need new or upgraded venues….what better way to get public funds by blocking votes.

  52. The Bay Area media continues to view Oakland as the victim of the A’s desire to leave and won’t do an investigative analysis of how Oakland has neglected the franchise for many years and how the sites Oakland keeps proposing over and over again are unfeasible or, at best, inadequate. We’ll continue to hear low-information talking points from the local news media about this issue. We’ll see a fancy drawing of a theoretical ballpark at Howard Terminal but without the analysis of how this site plain doesn’t work.

  53. @Muppet-Great points on the logistical problems with HT. I was only pointing out the $$ issues. 10 years to be shovel ready? This OWB group is lost in space to think that site is workable in any sense for 500M total.

    I think Wolff knows he has to build at the Coliseum but he needs the Raiders and Warriors to bounce first in order to build in the parking lot.

    He mentioned the Coliseum is probably the best site at this point and I think that is why he wants a 5-10 year extension. Figuring the Warriors will be in SF or SJ, the Raiders in Santa Clara or LA. At that point he can have the entire Coliseum site to himself.

    Unless of course San Jose wins their lawsuit. Just a theory I am throwing out there.

  54. Of course if Mark Davis figures out he has no options and just stays at the current Coliseum that would kill any chance of the A’s building in the parking lot.

  55. @pjk, The Bay Area media is obviously biased with its one sided approach on the plight of the A’s in their quest to getting a new ballpark. Also, It’s blatantly hypocritical when Oakland pols and business leaders relentlessly push for unrealistic Oakland venues for a new A’s ballpark, while remaining at best conspicuously quiet when it comes to the proposed move of the Warriors out of Oakland to San Francisco. There are some in this group, including Doug Boxer, who are active proponents of the Warrior’s move to San Francisco.

  56. @Sid–agree on your assessment–10 year lease request is intended to force Oakland to make a decision–either the A’s with LW getting to manage the CC development (ballpark only) or the Raiders–but not both–

    Seeing that the W’s are not considering partnering with the gints on an arena next to ATT makes alot more sense and will probably move this process along quicker. Ironic in that while JQ has been working with the gints ownership to keep the A’s out of SJ they were also working against her to take the W’s from Oakland–

  57. It’s funny that Marcus Thompson wrote a piece criticizing Mark Davis this weekend. Still with the token sentence about how “Oakland needs to work harder on these kind of developments” blah blah blah.. Evil Sports owner meme for about 723 paragraphs. As if Oakland’s incompetence isn’t just as much to blame as Mark Davis, Lew Wolff or Joe Lacob (or is Joe Lacob free from blame now because Steven Tavares keeps insinuating that he is Oakland’s savior, as he continues to push to get the Hell out?)
    The local “thought leaders” are ridiculous. The only honest, broad pieces I can remember reading about the whole topic in the past 10 years have come from Chip Johnson and Mark Purdy. Everyone else is in space cadet land, printing what they are told to by the Giants, Oakland City Pols, etc… Journalism is a dead art.

  58. Robert Gammon, too. He wrote a great piece about the Fremont thing. I forgot that one.

  59. Yeah I have to admit…even tho its on the outside area of Downtown S.F….if the SF Giants play nice…I feel the Golden State Warriors could reach a deal and move to S.F…still a lot of red tape to go thru…but its possible. .. Oakland however still has the advantage because Lew Wolff and Mark Davis have yet to show balls and actually move the teams out the Coliseum. ..even for a year temp…to show Oakland to get their act together. until then…Oakland doesn’t have to do much

  60. @Jeffrey—cant understand to this date if Joe thinks that HT is such a great site for the A’s then why doesn’t he jump on it for his arena–and of course no bay area media member has asked him the question–if its good enough for the A’s why not for the W’s

  61. I agree with GoA’s…Im surprised east bay media has not championed Howard Terminal Arena for the future home of the Warriors. .o well

  62. Harry, Oakland has plenty to do. Right now. Mark Davis pointed it out

  63. @Jeffery
    I have to check..but ill ask Oakland leaders if they really want to be “game changers”…how about Oakland promote a near waterfront football stadium for the Oakland Raiders. ..Howard Terminal field…why not??? Could it work ML or Jeffery. serious too…

  64. Harry: Did you know Mark Davis is nearly 60 years old? Does he want to wait until he’s pushing 70 years old to get a new stadium at Howard Terminal (all talk of paying for the thing aside)? That’s how long it would take to get it done at HT if the city can even get the approvals.

  65. @pjk

    It was just a thought. ..a port football stadium is Oakland and Raiders. .also an attract the now vacant Marin county and S.F crowd to west Oakland. ..

  66. M&R are full of shit!…but what else is new. They’re all for the Warriors possibly moving to SF out of Oakland, but will completely chastise A’s ownership for wanting to do the same. I get it; in their eyes (and others of the traditional Bay Area media) SF is OK…my SJ apparently isn’t. @$#%! Morons!

  67. Quan eliminates one more opposition that was standing in the way of these stadiums in Deanna Santana and promotes Blackwell, she really is trying no matter who dislikes her.

  68. @K and all the san Jose crew

    I dont think the nimbys would get in the way of the Warriors building next to the SF Giants ballpark….if im Oakland if San Jose fails to provide funding for upgrades at the SAP…could we be saying future “Oakland Sharks”???

  69. @harry lol do know about that, but it is always about who will be the first to cut the check. maybe they will finally win a championship if they moved to Oakland, happened to the A’s from K.C lol

  70. @harry don’t know about that

  71. I never liked the idea of GSW sticking that crap on the waterfront. It would never happen so I didn’t worry about it.

    I’m not so bothered if they move next to Pac Bell.

    Here’s an idea, this is plausible. The Sharks move up to SF, share that stadium. Madison Square Garden West. MLB, NBA and NHL all sharing a parking lot? One more and they got an EGOT.

    Small footprint, eco-friendly. MSG hosts the Knicks, the Rangers, St. John’s, NIT, Miley & Kanye, Democratic National Conventions. Felt Forum, meet Moscone.

    Urban-friendly, less tax on transport and infrastructure. Just enough space for requisite condo development.

    Oakland will keep the A’s. Sorry, haters.

    LA needs an NFL franchise and has loads of useless land to develop. Raiders. Perfect fit.

    Water runs downhill. Don’t look at me, I just watch it.

  72. Option 1, Fact: (A) LW is never going to commit to HT due to absurd site cost and conspicuously insufficient monetary corporate/fan base. (B) Any Oakland Pol that hints at throwing 9 figure amounts of tax payer money at preparing an A’s stadium site is DOA (never mind the stadium subsidy that is a must for ROI). (C) MLB is never going to OK this site due to cost and lack of the massive sum of public money needed to make it happen.
    Option 2, Farce: Oakland floats another cost prohibitive and unworkable site (is it two or three they are floating these days?), the media eats it up as ‘the A’s have their Oakland home now if LW would just stop being a big meanie’, the Oakland only crowd stakes its emotional and though lacking flag in it.

    Hmmmm, which will one will I go with? The fact or the farce? I don’t know, it’s a tough choice. The farce sure sounds like a pristine fool’s paradise to kick back and relax in. Naaah, I’ll stick with fact for now (rolls eyes).

  73. Sharks to SF and Oakland will keep the A’s? Freddy, I just came to the realization that you come in here just to TRY to piss folks off; not to give serious opinion. LOL! Nice try brah…

  74. People are going to believe what they want to believe. I saw one thread where a guy said the Clorox group is ready to buy the team and break ground right now. Never mind that the Howard Terminal site that the group wants is so beset with problems it would take 7 years or more to do anything at the site, if the money can be found to do it and if multiple layers of governmental approvals are acquired. And this Clorox group has never talked about how much money it is willing to pay. Got $1.7 billion for the franchise and stadium?

  75. The way things are going, I can see the A’s continuing on playing at the Coliseum indefinitely. As for the Raiders, I see them either remaining at the Coliseum, or going to Santa Clara. At this point, the only hope for the A’s in getting their own new Bay Area ballpark relatively soon is with a favorable outcome from the courts.

  76. @IIpec-I am with you, we need a favorable outcome from the courts or a new commissioner. I believe a new commissioner who is more forward thinking would put an end to this quickly and force the Giants of the island.

    Every other team has new or renovated ballparks except the A’s and Rays. No one is going to move into anyone’s “territory” in the next 40 years. MLB unlike the NHL and NBA are in all the right markets with the right splits for the 2-team markets except the Bay Area and Tampa Bay.

    Hence why MLB teams are all profitable with revenue sharing while the NHL and NBA have teams struggling in several markets.

    Now if the A’s were moving to San Jose from outside the Bay Area the Giants would have a significant argument but the fact people in San Jose have watched the A’s on TV for decades? Wow…

    Its down the to courts or Selig leaving…

  77. @Tony D

    Nobody is trying to make u mad. San Jose like any other city “will be called to the carpet” for public funding to update the SAP…is your citt really going to go “fieldofschemes” on ur beloved San Jose Sharks.. and push management into a corner to actually. …move out San Jose…Oakland could use Oracle Arena and the possible new SF Warriors arena as leverage… so yes very soon u guys will have to put up or shut up…

  78. @llpec

    Man Save Oakland Sports reAlly hates ML. U mention marine layer on their blog…u get eggs thrown at u (verbally) I mentioned whoever stays at the Coliseum should get all the land to develop. ..that means Raiders and or A’s

  79. @harry–sports franchises are working to move out of Oakland and into either SF or SJ for a reason–Oakland is not an attractive market (not trying to make you mad–just stating a fact)

    Second- SOS hates ML because he raises the tough questions that everyone in the Oakland only crowd wants to gloss over. Why has no one called JQ on the carpet for saying the Raiders would be signed onto CC by this summer when Mark Davis says he has no idea what is going on and is very frustrated. They didn’t even attend the SOS meeting and they were to be the featured speaker! How come no one will push Oakland for an EIR on HT so that the issues can be layed out on the table and openly discussed–because the facts would show it is not a feasible site–

    For those of us who care about the A’s its beyond frustrating the delay tactics that Oakland is using an supported by SOS by not asking the tough questions and demanding answers.

  80. @GoA’s:

    Seriously, before any group or stoopid mayor can even mention any sites, they better show the money or a way to come up with the money. The EIR or whatever is required is secondary right now. MD is frustrated bcuz he is not seeing the money

    Where is the beef ?

  81. @GoA’s

    I been kicked on and off this site…but on the real I do appreciate and apologize to Marine Layer for my actions (when I get over emotional) because truth does hurt… but I appreciate how ML will ask Oak, S.F and San Jose the “adult conversation” re:building sports venues…

    Back on glad at least Howard Terminal wont be used for maritime use…so it does open the door for a future ballpark or arena…I do hope Lew Wolff will look “one more Damn time” at this downtown port site of Oakland…lew could make a lot of money from that side of town… as for JQ… they will point to Ray Ratto article “Raiders and A’s have no leverage” they should build at Coliseum City. ..

  82. @harry:

    Ratto? another idiot on Frisco payroll ! You know which company/team own CSNBA right ? You know Ratto is now a regular on KBNR right ?

  83. @daniel–don’t disagree–but an EIR helps to frame the money equation–right now its all speculation (built on a solid basis) but an EIR would begin the process of what true costs are to build at a particular site–remember–the Oakland folks are claiming HT is feasible–LW and others say its not–an EIR settles the dispute and puts it all in writing for all to see–

    @harry- show LW the EIR for HT that validates the SOS position that it is a viable site and then lets see what he says—bttm line is he knows and so do the Oakland pols that it is not a viable site but rather another delay tactic hoping to buy time–

    Oakland only folks have to ask themselves if these Oakland sites are so viable–and MLB supposedly loves them–then why is the focus on mlb and others on trying to figure out the TR issue rather than saying you need to build in Oakland?

  84. Chances are, some folks won’t commit to an EIR on HT until the A’s agree to build there regardless of whether the EIR shows it’s just not feasible.

  85. Just loved this quote from CSN which really says it all concerning the A’s plight for a SJ Ballpark …

    “And the A’s are just standing and watching as San Jose takes its blindfolded swings at hummingbird piñata that is Major League Baseball.”

    Good luck, Lew, hitting that elusive hummingbird 🙂

  86. @GoA’s
    Pjk is correct, there are a lot of people that won’t commit to an EIR (which makes sense), if there is not a commitment by someone, A’s or otherwise to build.
    I do get your point (imagine that I get your point “sarcasm”), if Howard Terminal is viable at all, it would seem the members of the OWB group would be doing everything they could to prove that, after all if it’s true that MLB prefers that site so much, then why not get the EIR done ASAP.
    I wonder if the Warriors are forced to abandon their plans for piers 30/32, and team up with the San Franco Giants, how would that affect the makeup of this OWB group (if at all), after all it was reported that Joe Lacob (I believe), was the real big money behind this push, could it have been that he saw H.T., as a site that the Warriors and A’s could have shared (fifty acres), with the unbelievable amount of money it’s going to take (not to mention red tape), to get it shovel ready (if it can be built on), I could see him thinking it would take both teams, and revenue stems from the site year round to make it work.

  87. @pjk and Jeff

    Will Oakland take a Real hardline stance on the next lease extension with the A’s and Raiders in 2015/2016? Will they demand more money out of both teams and share a stadium neither own?? It will be interesting to see the east bay media to bully the A’s and Raiders into paying more at the Coliseum and or invest in Coliseum City. ..would that be the move to finally get Wolff (Sacramento) and Davis (L.A) to bounce outta Oakland? ???

  88. @LSN- if MLB is committed to HT as many of the Oakland crowd proclaim you can bet that there would be an ultimatum to initiate it- once again- SJ finished their EIR 3 years ago with no guarantees- Oakland should be held to the same standard

  89. @harry- the A’s are the perfect example of welfare being just fine v having to make a choice that is less economically desirable- LW gets 30M until a new ballpark is built- if your gonna give that up it better be a damn good reason

  90. If Larry Ellison gave up on that stupid pier, Lacob should have known before declaring a victory.

  91. It’s funny how everyone is talking about EIR, there is a process and HT just became available so why the bitching of a EIR, it wasn’t available years ago and there is proper procedure to get things done. Reason why that OWB group sent a letter to have agreement to do the proper test and get proper EIR, permits etc. YES SJ has there done but MLB wont decide so that point is mute. Just like people on here saying show me the EIR for CC where is it its past due so on and so on, its already been said that it is close to complete and due this summer, wait until summer instead of blasting about wheres this and wheres that. you already know wheres that, according to the developer etc this summer. So wait and see and if there is not one that throw stones and Oakland.

  92. @k- settlement with HT occurred back in July- another 8 months has passed and Oakland still hasn’t initiated anything with HT- EIR with CC is a piece of cake- doesn’t change the use from what it is today- the challenge for CC is the feasibility study which has been delayed and of which MD says he has no idea what is going on and hasn’t heard a word from Oakland- that’s why we question Oakland really doing anything-

    And assuming a successful lawsuit by SJ the completed EIR shows a signifant intent on SJ part so not only will it help to move the project forward more quickly but it is a key part of the lawsuit-

  93. @GoA’s
    I agree with you, I don’t think MLB is committed to H.T., CC, or Dirdon, MLB is committed to nothing but MLB.
    I also agree with you, that Oakland or this OWB group should have got this done, or attest started it.
    But I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to compare San Jose to Oakland only in the sense that San Jose is competing to get something they don’t have, Oakland is competing for something they do have, so San Jose should be out in front in that regard.
    Oakland is not a good example in this regard, because they are embarrassingly behind, and don’t deserve the opportunity to host a MLB team, if Oakland retains the A’s it will only be because they will not allow the A’s to have San Jose, and no other markets will be ready anytime soon on.

  94. @ K
    I here you man, I love the idea of a ballpark being at Howard Terminal, but it is easily the most difficult and money eaters, of all the Bay Area sites that have been proposed.
    I may be the most Pro-Oakland person that comments here regularly, not saying Oakland can’t or won’t get an EIR done, but don’t you think they should have started?, and if the process prevented them and they knew MLB liked the site, don’t you think they should have started the process earlier?

  95. @GoA’s and it has been widely noted especially on here about the process to use it just for non maritime and getting proper permits. Just voted last week to reject maritime use. that’s one step in many just to get to a contract to do a EIR. That settlement in July was just to have the old tenants vacate that doesn’t mean they can just switch it for baseball use, there are city, port and state processes that have to be and are being followed. As for CC yes it should be easy but they are covering all basis to make sure all things are covered, 1 team, 2 team, 3 team. Also how much acreage would be used how far to build out etc, it’s not just the parking lot that currently holds the team its way bigger than that so that is the time. MD was talking out his ass, yes he may not have talked for a couple months, he gave his view on what he wants to the development group, they took it and are working on the who development design project etc to have renderings, financing, who gets what etc. They are working with the city to develop this that’s what they are doing, and it was specifically said in that ALCO meeting that they are working with the group and will present it in April to the teams and “then” they can sign on and have the opportunity to give additional input etc into the project. Nothing has changed but Mark Davis speaking. There’s no news there if we go back and look at what was said MD yes is impatient rightfully so, but the facts of what has been said by Fred Blackwell in that meeting hasn’t change.

  96. I should not say Oakland does not deserves an MLB team, it not the people of Oakland, it’s the Oakland politicians, that have thrown this team under the bus ever opportunity they have had over the years, bending over backward for the Raiders and to a lesser extent to the Warriors, and never once have made the kind of effort it takes to build a new stadium for the A’s, Robert Bob even lost his job behind trying to make a real effort.
    If Oakland retains the A’s it won’t have anything to do past political efforts in the city.

  97. @IIpec
    Earlier in the thread you mentioned the thought of this (H.T. site), possibly being a stalling tactic and you were concerned, and that MLB may very well fall for it.
    Tony D. then reminded us all that if MLB is stupid enough to fall for this as a stalling tactic we are all ^%@)+$, in trouble (funny stuff Tony).
    Well I would have to agree with Tony, in that, there is no way MLB is falling for any stalling tactic, on the part of Oakland, if Oakland is stalling which 20 years would be pretty damn good stall, the only party that can stall better and longer then Oakland is MLB.
    And MLB will go on letting them all think they have a reasonable chance till they make their choice, why tell a potential costumer they have lost, before you have to.
    You never know, you may have to fall back to that second, or third choice. You know how it goes in business never say no until you have to, so come one come all San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Portland, San Antonio, and Timbuktu, MLB knows what they are doing, the longer they wait the more options will open up.

  98. @Lakeshore/Neil yes I agree, but if this OWB group wants to push forward and spend the million plus on seeing how much it cost, all Lew should say is go for it its your money not mine, and if it becomes feasible since the last study was over 10 years ago we will re evaluate it. They can’t start the process that have no right to as the port still owns it and has to follow guidelines to make it work, if it gets circumvented bring on the lawsuits. We all know the elephant in the room for HT is a ballpark, everything that has been done has pointed to it from Quan personally appointing new port staff throughout her term to one step being cleared for maritime use. No if this gets legs and suits want to follow, at least the port can justify they followed the correct procedure and laws in the process to make this a moot point. Just remember that Coal company that just got denied, they will be making noise down the road for getting denied, about the process but they port can say they still delayed the decision and allowed them to present extra info to the table before denying them, they did there due process.

  99. @k–how did SJ complete an EIR when they don’t own the land? and didn’t JQ say an EIR was a non-issue because one was completed for a convention center in this area back in the 60’s?

  100. @k-you seem very confident on CC while the stakeholders (someone called Mark D that would need to be a partner) don’t agree with you. Blackwell job is to be a cheerleader–he would have done well as part of the orchestra in the Titanic–on the other hand Larry Reed is asking the right questions–unfortunately with no answers—why is Larry R saying oakland should accept a 10 year lease extension with the A’s—likely because he realizes that CC won’t happen either and its best to hold onto what you got and hope something can happen down the road which is exactly what he said–

  101. @GoA’s its Port Land it doesn’t reside on the city. We all know Quan aint the brightest, she used a talking point that she heard and resided it Ill rather put my money on the actual people that are pushing HT. and she said some building requirements, namely a review by the Bay Conservation Development Commission, never a EIR.

  102. @GoA’s again check the facts as Blackwell has done alot more than a cheerleader between his time with SF and Oakland. And you mention Larry Reid and the response to all of council and ALCO was that’s part of the process to have all these questions answered. Which will be due soon. Also Larry Reid is not the man working with the developers it is Blackwell working with them so I would bet Blackwell has a lot more info than Reid.

  103. @K- so you just keep your council in the dark until when…? Isnt that what the JPA was complaining about as it relates to CC? Didn’t they inquire about how to be bought out from the project going forward? How about that VC EIR that the Oakland city council voted on–approved funds for–and which never went forward–no mention of why–just didn’t happen–and yet you stand on the mount and say “trust us”! trust is earned not granted and to date Oakland is batting 0

  104. @GoA’s also as you can see he was recently promoted by Quan as the former was given the boot due to her anti stadium view and other such sidings (Occupy) and failures in her tenure.

  105. Oakland keeps stalling, stalling, stalling so it can keep the teams in the only venue it’s going to be able to offer: the current decaying football stadium.

  106. @GoA’s there is a thing called a process, what was the original timetable…. April they pretty much started the renderings financing etc for this project from scratch. you cant blink your eye and it magically appears the group came on like in OCT. There is nothing to go forward on that needs the JPA or rest of council members on board yet. You put your project together and get agreements from the developer etc and you present it to council and they give there objections etc and you make it work, tweak it to there liking, or nix it. You ever think MLB said that wasn’t a site to there liking, just how MLB told SJ to hold off on public vote?

  107. @pjk if summer passes and nothing comes we can say stalling.

  108. GoA’s you got it right they inquired as in asked if it was possible, and the response was from the city no, but the investment group maybe. That goes to the many moving parts, more money for developers to chip in means more property or incentive for them. IT’s a process

  109. K: Sounds like the city got Mark Davis’s name on a lease extension and nothing has happened since. 5 months of nothing.

  110. @pjk I guess the word develop and process doesn’t mean anything on here, it takes time. yeah he public supports it, he didn’t sign on for anything, that is APRIL where they said they will have letters of intent and show and give the plans to the teams and if they like it and are on board its a go and they can change aspects to the project once signed on legally.

  111. K: We do remember the stealth Victory Court EIR work that never took place. Fool me once…

  112. @GoA’s/@K

    GoA’s, Man we all know Oakland has more than their share of BS in the past, and not they have done anything to earn anyone’s trust, but you don’t really except (K) to have an answer for all of Oakland past BS, do you?
    K Dose bring up some good point, as it relate to the EIR at Howard Terminal, not to say the A’s are ever going to build there, the site has a mountain of obstacles, the infrastructure and environmental clean-up cost themselves make it by far the highest cost site in the Bay Area.
    It would take someone who really wanted to build on that site to get it done, someone that really does not care about the cost; I got it how about the Warriors (see piers 30/32), oh that’s ok.
    K, Man don’t trip, I always say most people won’t believe Oakland can get something done, until it actually gets done , and after that the same people will make excuses as to why it got done, but in all fairness Oakland has invited that level of skepticism .

  113. @pjk come on the 1 year lease extension, it was a empty threat, really tell me where he would take the raiders next year with no planning, he sat down with the investors and signed on based on his meeting. and if 5 months is too long for a project like this, then idk what to tell you

  114. @Lakeshore/Neil agreed Oak POL’s deserve a lot but checking the history of Quan it doesn’t lie, yes we all know shes a quack that’s fact lol, but we can go back to when she was vice mayor, she has been working to keep the teams in Oakland, and she became mayor and let MLB know that Oakland wont go down quietly, and since then she has been quietly eliminating weather by crookedness or whatever you wanna call it, council members and port people who have been and were anti stadium and hand picking and promoting pro stadium people into critical roles. Those are the facts we cant be denied that go along way in the grand scheme. Alot of this has gone unnoticed but those are critical parts and people that will make the final decision on Oakland side to keep the teams, weather its tax money or other funding etc.

  115. does JQ know how to spell process ?

  116. just a bunch of BS and more BS from incompetent officials and clueless cheerleaders.

  117. @daniel lol typical response no substance just pointless angry thinking that a lawsuit will work

  118. @K : I don’t like to call people stupid but Oakland has not done shit for 100 years so now you want to get on here and claim process ?

    Tell me where you can get the money? W/o the bucks, nothing will happen in Oakland.

  119. @daniel I never vouched for Oakland’s past but the past has a lot more history than SJ if you wanna go there. Yes past POL’s have sucked and abused there power for personal gain. but that’s not the issue at hand, there are ways that are being looked in to. I know everyone is fed up loves to hate on Oakland, Oak has had to many chances, yea we have but guess what its still the Oakland A’s MLB is stalling for a reason no one knows but time is on Oak’s side sit back and enjoy the ride to the A”s new stadium in OAKLAND

  120. Oakland’s past has more history than San Jose? Oakland built a multipurpose stadium and an arena in the ’60s at ’60s prices. And now it’s time for 3 new facilities, priced totaling about $2 billion. Oakland doesn’t have this kind of money. It’s very simple. Will private developers come forward and provide it? What we’re hearing from Mark Davis lately doesn’t sound too good…San Jose got a world-class arena built and the soccer stadium is now going up at a rapid pace. San Jose is being prevented from having an A’s stadium built within the city for nonsensical reasons.

  121. Where will you get the money ? KJ got the money for the Kings in Sacto.

    JQ can do the same. So lets’ get going. JQ can get at least 250mils tomorrow right?

    That’s all it matters . MONEY.

  122. @pjk its great that there’s no reporters on here as if you take what MD said he hasn’t talked to them in months… duh its not time for him to talk they are developing the project and creating renderings, what did they say letter of intent when they present the project and outline, whats the date you ask…. APRIL, come on MD is not bright why would he bash his stadium that we all know sucks and he expect to bring in F.A with the owner saying that, plain stupid, he should keep his mouth shut. you are right will the developers bring money to the table, but the city will too. yes they got the niners stadium everything feel into place perfect for them, winning hype, etc, perfect storm, soccer is soccer. SJ being prevented yea but those are the rules so SJ is gonna cry about the rules being unfair, it sucks in some viewpoints but that was a big mistake to give away rights.

    @daniel They money will come and if LEW was a owner that wanted to work with the city like the new kings owner did it would have been done. hell that HT ballpark group is trying to do all the prep work Lew wont so if hes crying that its too much money that group is offering money to prep the site, So Lew wont have to spend all the bogus numbers that people through out on here.

  123. re: if Lew wanted to work with the city.

    But hasn’t Mark Davis been working with Oakland and its private developers for years and still, no deal? Just Davis saying Oakland is on its last chance. Like I said, it’s just stall, stall, stall and keep the teams in the current decaying football stadium with no new facilities in sight….Lew is an experienced real estate developer. When he says HT won’t work, I put more stock in what he has to say than what some executive at a bleach company says. HT gives us another decade of stalling.

  124. you mean those bogus numbers that were commissioned by Oakland back in 2000 and which have only grown worse with inflation and additional regulatory policy–muppet posted a nice summary earlier in this thread–hard to refute what you paid to have reported–

  125. I’ll make this easy for all of you; K, you’re fool of shit! See, very simple, now let’s move on…

  126. GoAs: Yes, we’re supposed to believe that a site deemed too expensive and unfeasible in 2000 has somehow miraculously transformed into ideal and economical 14 years later. Spare me…

  127. @K
    You have some intestinal fortitude

  128. “@pjk its great that there’s no reporters on here as if you take what MD said he hasn’t talked to them in months… duh its not time for him to talk they are developing the project and creating renderings,”

    “@daniel They money will come and if LEW was a owner that wanted to work with the city like the new kings owner did it would have been done.”

    You just contradicted yourself and don’t even realize it. At the same time you just highlighted Oakland’s biggest flaw. Sacramento didn’t rely on the developers to frame the deal to keep the Kings. They did that themselves with the help of an outside law firm familiar with such deals. There is no negotiating with Oakland as Oakland is standing on the side line letting developers put the Coliseum City deal together.

    It isn’t time to talk to Mark Davis but Lew Wolff needs to negotiate with Oakland? Classic.

    The strategy being used in Oakland now is pretty damn close to the strategy used in San Francisco:

    Fred Blackwell was San Francisco’s point man for the 49er deal and he’s Oakland point man on the sports project now. Not exactly comforting since he’s going about the Oakland deal in a very similar manner to the failed San Francisco project.

  129. @pjk it’s funny how u say years the only money that came on board has been months. Md hasn’t been negotiating for years, maybe talking but everyone knew he would have to front way more that what he has so now money is at the table and portions can be sorted out along with the 300 mil md has.

    @GoA’s yea I saw that it was interesting but you preach inflation and yea it could have gone up, but it’s all a guessing game, guess what technology changes too and advances that might make it cheaper, no one knows a thing until testing and study’s are done

  130. K: Davis has been looking for a new stadium for the Raiders for years. He said Oakland now has its last chance. No more stalling, stalling, stalling. But it looks like stalling might be all Oakland has to offer, unless some Knight in Shining Armor decides to pay for the stadium since Oakland can’t and Davis can’t.

  131. Dog you guys (K), has some valid points, this is sort of an open forum I thought, do you really have to ride the guy like that? So the guy has a different opinion then you, so what.
    This whole mess is not entirely on Oakland. (Believe it or not), or can I say that…

  132. @muppet

    Yeah I remember that whole issue. A couple things to remember

    -The “San Francisco” 49ers would have stayed if the city had provided to pay the necessary clean uo costs at the naval shipyards and around candlestick area…they knew it was too expensive to do it.

    San Francisco as the bay area flagship city and their “fieldofschemes” way does not set a good example of getting public funding from a city. Im surprised the nfl, mlb and nba havent been brave enough to show S.F its not a exception. ..but what done is done.

    This is why Joe Montana is so pissed at S.F management/city leaders. I heard he doesn’t even mess with S.F anymore…dont blame him..S.F has really sold a lot of “true real ppl” and priced them out.. its a issue that one day will bite S.F in the ass

    San Francisco has the Giants and if the city and Giants work together they could steal “Oakland’s” Warriors…so S.F would be a 2 team city. ..

    This is why Oakland and San Jose have not truly stepped up and offered public funding to get the A’s . ..again I preach California is not the exception re’
    : public funding. ..the sports leagues really need to press the issue. The Kings got their public funding so can the other cities

  133. @K and PJK

    Oakland can stall…and why..because unless Mark Davis and Lew Wolff are planning on really moving out the Coliseum then Oakland will use their successful “stall tactic”

  134. it does not matter how Sacto and KJ got the money. They were able to get 250mils for the Kings.

    What has Oakland been doing? talking BS. Stall. more BS. more PR. more dancing around the money issue.

    KJ from the start understood the real issue and worked on it. KJ made a promise to David Stern that he would get the money. KJ just needed Stern and the NBA to trust him that he would it get done. Stern did. The Kings atay in Sacto.

    What has Oakland done ? N.O.T.H.I.N.G

    If you ask BS and MLB, they may not publicly say it out loud but they don’t trust the incompetent pols from Oakland. Same if you go ask the NFL and Roger Goodell.

    SC mayor Kaplan convinced Goodell and the NFL to give her and the city a chance. They came through as promised.

    What have Dellums, Brown and now JQ done? lots of bullshit but nothing else.

  135. Like the article muppet posted- SF had the same arrogant attitude as Oakland that there were no other choices for the ‘9ers- remember TK another useless Bay Area media saying he would eat his shoe if it ever happened- wonder how that leather tastes Tim

  136. re: What have Dellums, Brown and now JQ done?

    …While Dellums did pretty much nothing and Quan has done nothing but hold press conferences and pep rallies and have fancy drawings done up, Brown’s efforts actively impeded the A’s. He committed the best ballpark site (Uptown) to housing, fired Robert Bobb after Bobb devised a ballpark plan, and then, as governor, Brown rapidly eliminated redevelopment, which was probably Oakland’s only mechanism to maybe pay for stadiums.

  137. Dont get me wrong fellas there are plenty of pissed off fieldofschemers mad that they are public funding the new Sacramento Kings Arena…a judge had to call for a no vote…same thing might have to happen in the bay area to get public funding. ..

    I repeat SAN Francisco is thr real problem. ..the sports leagues should have took the giants away back in92. Maybe s.f would have done more to keep the giant and 49ers…

  138. Harry: Frisco is NOT a big sports town. The Frisco teams rely on people from San Mateo, Marin, Alameda and even Santa Clara counties to go to the games. The 49ers, last I heard, had more season ticketholders in Sacramento than they did in Frisco. Why should the city make a huge, expensive effort to keep something not deemed a big priority by the citizens?

  139. @pjk

    Yes…but im speaking for friends amd family who are still surviving african american and Latino s.f residents who are S.F /Santa Clara 49ers season ticket holders. They felt the city should have provided everything to the team that gave the city 5 championships…

  140. Going to throw my BS onto this discussion. Raiders move to London in 2015. No worrying about building a stadium or EIR. Raiders have more options than just LA and Oakland .and they don’t have to worry about the BS with California politics and backstabbing lawsuits…

    So if I was in the Pro Oakland or Pro LA Raider camps I would be somewhat worried about the team moving across the pond. You have a NFL ready stadium and a whole country that would support the team or in this case visiting teams. Remember Mark Davis and his mullet makes a trip to England in October. Funny how 2 teams that needs a new stadium or stadium improvements are scheduled to play in London in 2014.

  141. @Mike2
    U might be on to something..we will see this coming season the reaction the London fans corporate and public crowd give the Raiders. the game.. sew how many fans wear make up and do the things Raiders fans do…if succesful the NFL and Mark Davis might have conversation on threatening to legit move to London unless California coughs up money and land resources for the Raiders to stay….

  142. Maybe Tottenham can partner with the Raiders for a new White Hart Lane

  143. Saw on field of schemes that W’s are now also looking for other sites in SF besides the gints. When is Joe gonna step up and make HT his own since he thinks it’s such a great site. There is a side of me that would love to see the A’s and W’s build at HT- so that Larry Baer would have to look at it daily- of course it will never happen but hey- we all have our fantasies-

  144. @K- Your optimism is remarkable when you look at the past history of what Oakland has done to the A’s.

    1. They backstabbed Steve Schott and reneged on a deal to re-model the Coliseum for baseball only a la the LA Angels. Only to have the Raiders come back and ruin the stadium for life, the A’s sued and won 16M and major lease concessions that are in effect to this day.

    2. Jerry Brown sold the one feasible site in all of Oakland to developers who had him in their pocket over a new stadium that would have re-energized the team and been a catalyst for Downtown Oakland.

    3. They propose Victory Court only to not complete the EIR and back out after touting the site for so long when 16 businesses who don’t want to sell sit on the site.

    4. They now are touting Coliseum City with the A’s are phase 3 of the project! Phase 3! They play the most games of the 3 teams still at the Coliseum site and they are in phase 3? What a slap in the face!

    5. Now this OWB group thinks Howard Terminal is all of a sudden feasible when they did a study on this site in 2001? Trying to make Wolff look bad? When Wolff has more experience in real estate in his left nut than the entire OWB group has total?

    6. Jean Quan calls the Giants to support them from blocking the A’s move to San Jose? WTF?

    To your point, Howard Terminal is not feasible and stop thinking it is. That soil is so contaminated as Muppet pointed out it would take years just to get it “shovel ready”, not to mention the huge cost of building the site out itself. Take a look at the HOK study in 2001.

    Not like that site itself has changed much from that time.

    Oakland is responsible for destroying the relationship with the A’s. To think otherwise you are on another planet.

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.