Tweets and commentary from 10/1 Oakland Planning Commission meeting

The public came out of the Planning Commission meeting with more questions than answers, and that’s a good thing. When the EIR comment period ends, it’s up to City staff and consultants to provide answers to the many question posed by the public.

A presentation was given to start. Early discussion focused on affordable housing as part of the plan. The plan calls for 5,750 housing units to be built. 25% of those are supposed to be affordable, whether via rental or purchase. The Bay Area’s ever-skyrocketing housing market makes that 25% a growing subsidy (public and/or private) with each passing month. According to trulia, the median price for a home in Oakland is $475,000, up 8% from September 2013. Oakland uses a HUD formula to calculate affordable housing on a regional basis. In essence, 25% of housing would have to be affordable for households making $72,000 or less per year. However, the median income in Oakland is less than $52,000/year. To make it work, the City and developers would have to crunch some serious numbers to determine the proper mix of pricing and subsidies, not to mention addressing low income residents and senior citizens – both groups represented by commenters at the meeting. Chances are that most of it would come out of developers’ pockets, though Governor (and former Oakland mayor) Jerry Brown has been working to get rid of affordable housing set-asides. This puzzle has to be solved by all residential developers in California, so it would affect Coliseum City’s principals or Lew Wolff and partners if they were given the opportunity. One East Oakland resident got straight to the point.

As the Commissioners took their turns picking apart the plan, one asked about the status of discussions with other parties that need to be involved. The responses?

That third tweet is interesting. We haven’t covered the bay inlet much. That’s a reference to the new part of the bay that would approach the new arena (assuming the Warriors stay at Coliseum City).

Inlet at top

Inlet at top

You might think that the inlet was designed for a ferry terminal or for boats with a dock. You would be incorrect. It’s merely a shallow extension of the estuary, a tidal mudflat not meant for recreation. It’s meant to provide an additional habitat to go with all of the new construction, but it seems like a wasted opportunity. Of course, providing a ferry terminal would bring about an even greater environmental review since some dredging would be required. A couple commissioners seized on the fact that of the various development options the no-build alternative was barely touched except to say that the various venues would be demolished and other development would fill in at some point. Since this is a Specific Plan and not just a small project-level EIR, it’s within the Planning Commission’s right to ask about what happens if the teams leave, since it’s a distinct possibility. The scenario should be addressed in more detail in the final EIR.

A few Raiders fans showed up to provide their support, including Dr. Death and Godfather Grizz. They were largely outnumbered by local residents who expressed concerns about the aforementioned housing problem, gentrification, the need for improved police and fire services in the area, and questions about the effects Coliseum City could have on the rest of Oakland. One thing I’m surprised to not hear was a question about what impact a second downtown (which is what CC represents) would have on the current downtown/uptown area. While that’s a question that goes broader than the existing project, it’s well within the Planning Commission’s purview to take on that kind of dilemma – if it’s a dilemma at all.

Coliseum employees who want to see their jobs protected were well represented. One resident noticed the streetcar that runs through the complex and wanted to see it expand all the way out through East Oakland and up International Blvd. If a streetcar is going to be put in at all, that’s the way to do it. A commissioner noted that while BART and the new AirBART are getting a lot of attention, very little is being paid to how AC Transit and Amtrak will be integrated. AC Transit is as important as anything, because while buses aren’t sexy, they will be responsible for providing transit for many of the low-wage workers that will be working at the hotels in the plan, especially at odd hours.

Overall, there was a large undercurrent of sentiment that Coliseum City is being conceived as an island, not well integrated with East Oakland. That itself is a dilemma, because developers don’t want their shiny condos associated with East Oakland’s rep while community groups and residents are desperately hungry for the opportunities the project represents. As part of Mayor Jean Quan’s 10K-2 plan, Coliseum City represents a big piece of a goal she’s trying to reach.

The Coliseum area had lost a few hundred jobs over the decade from 2000-10. Now it’s being counted on to retain three sports franchises – two of whom have no interest in the plan, along with around 4,000 new jobs throughout the 800-acre development. Developers tend to make big promises about such economic growth which get lost in market realities. Perhaps it’s time for more scrutiny of these estimates.

66 thoughts on “Tweets and commentary from 10/1 Oakland Planning Commission meeting

  1. I listened to the meeting for awhile. I wish all those that think that this is even remotely close to fruition would have watched. You get a glimpse of all the parties that will have a say, and they are endless. You had the crazies, but you had a ton of people that were there representing specific groups. Those are the people that derail projects, and cause lots of time to expire. They have their reasons, which are valid, but you get enough small pushback, and all of a sudden you have a big group to satisfy. Some on Twitter think this gets a shovel in the ground, this is years away. Lew has years, Davis doesn’t. If I was Davis, I bail on this thing.

    • What ever Davis (or Wolff), dose it’s going to take years, and that is at least in part his own fault. (his father as well) I think one thing this process shows us, is even if you own/control the land, have a willing partnership with government agencies and team owners (not that we have that exactly), it’s still not a slam dunk and it’s going to be vary difficult even, if every one is on the same page, which of course they are not. (at least not yet)

  2. Of course any project of this scale and magnitude is going to have plenty of critics and plenty of issues to deal with and to resolve. This is not unique to this project or to Oakland.

    The problem here is that we have two owners who would rather play games than to work together to make sure this project comes to fruition and they both get the venues they say they desire.

    I’ve never seen anyone who claims they want something like a new stadium or new ballpark and then stand back like the entire project is cryptonite as Lew Wolff and Mark Davis continually demonstrate.

    Is Wolff interested in this project or is he here just wasting everyone’s time? Does Davis want a new stadium or not? Frankly, both of these ownerships have demonstrated how inept they are at running their franchises with horrible management decisions which have in effect have lessen their status and cachet as they look for new venues.

    The Raiders are a horrible franchise with no bargaining power. What city in their right mind would pursue this train wreck while throwing money at it?

    The A’s have also bungled their leverage with their inept Billy Beane managerial decisions which cost the A’s the second half of the season. After all, Billy Beane blew up the Chemistry experiment while the General Manager across the Bay, who stood by and was criticized for doing nothing, is now heading deep into the playoffs. The A’s have lost much of the leverage they would have gained if the second half had not completely imploded because of managements own stupid decisions.

    Both these franchises need to stop pretending they are more than what they really area. Both the A’s and Raiders are not bigger than this proposed project and its possible ramifications for Oakland’s economy. It’s time for Wolff and Davis to either get on board or vacate the premises. Frankly I’m tired of the stalling by Wolff as he sits here and uses Oakland for his convenient timeline. I’m also tired of Davis pretending he has any leverage considering how awful his franchise has become.

    • @Elmano – This post was about the Planning Commission meeting. Not ownership groups. Next time you complain about being victimized, I will point your last comment out to you. It’s an ad hominem attack, unrelated to the subject matter at hand, and a complete troll job. Now you know. Learn from it.

      • What about the planning meeting should we talk about?

        The planning meeting is about the project and the project as it exists hinges on two ownserships who are not serious about the project.

        It has nothing to do with trolling. It has everything to do with being honest about what is holding this project back.

      • @Elmano – There are legitimate planning issues that were expressed in the meeting whether or not ownership groups are involved. It’s about the future of Oakland. You could at least attempt to address those. Instead you deflect, go to your standard diatribe, and as a result there’s no real discourse. Happy?

      • ML, respectfully, Elmano does make a point about ownership groups and leverage.

        The Raiders are inept and should work with the community that has supported them for the last 20 years, while they have returned misery . The A’s have more leverage due to there success.

    • Nav, Wolff has been trying to vacate the premises for the last 5 years. MLB won’t let him. He’s now showing interest again but only on his terms. If the city doesn’t like that they can continue with their overly complex project that is not feasible without the teams as it is currently laid out, and as we saw last night.

      • Dan, I believe that Wolff and MLB strong armed to city of Oakland on a lease, and now are just using the city at their convenience. It’s wrong.

        Also, I should stop since I seem to have taken this off topic from the planning commission meeting.

        Marine Layer, it’s your blog and you make the rules. If you think I’m off topic I’ll stop.

      • @Elmano – I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to hijack the comments so frequently with your rants. Consider the subject matter first.

      • @Dan: the giant’s owners’ goofyness is the reason why the A’s haven’t moved to SJ yet. MLB is aware of how foolish the giants argument is (that the A’s moving 40 miles further from SF is going to cause the giants to drop 800,000 in attendance)

    • @ Elmano
      I got to say Elmano, there are times when I may not agree with you altogether, but I find that even when I don’t, there is some part of your opinion, I actually find valid.
      I really think you hit the nail on the head with Wolff and Davis (although a bit OT), especially Davis whom has not come up with one specific plan of his own, and was quoted by Henry Cisneros, former Mayor of San Antonio as saying
      “Alameda County California is a dump and officials won’t build him a new one”
      If Davis really believes someone is going to build him a “new one”, he is out of his mind, San Antonio can have the Raiders if they are willing to pay for him to have a “new one”, its becoming more and more obvious that Mark Davis seems to really think he can get a stadium built, without doing his part to make that happen.
      As far as Wolff is concerned, he has made it painfully obvious, that he would rather not build in Oakland, but he has little to almost no choices, that could change and I’m sure he hopes it will, but as it stands, he does not and it’s not looking like he will, so I’m hoping he will take the path of lest resistance and be the lead developer, for an alternative vision of coliseum city, hopefully some of the work that’s being performed, at the moment EIR or other things that relate to the planning commission, can be transferable to a present or future idea that Wolff may have.
      I know its probably something you don’t want to hear, but Wolff may be the best hope Oakland has (ironically), as the Bay IG has constantly been behind on deadlines and can’t seem to get it together, there seems to be little hope that Oakland will extend their working agreement with Bay IG, and there seems to be a movement in the JPA, that they should go with Wolff as a lead developer.
      I don’t think Wolff would do it any other way. (can’t say I blame him for that), It’s odd that there is a chance that Lew Wolff, perhaps not by his first choice, but none the less may be the one person that gets the Raiders and A’s new venues at the coliseum site.
      Stranger things have happened.

      • Lakeshore,

        You make some valid points. I agree that Wolff wants nothing to do with Coliseum City. Based on The interview, Wolff seems to be hoping the Raiders “kick him out.”

        And yes, San Antonio would be foolish to build a stadium for Mark Davis and his organization, and I think Mark Davis would be foolish to go to San Antonio based on the market and two teams within 200 miles.

  3. Somebody smack the jukebox… I think there is a broken record.

  4. Ok, let’s assume that this project goes ahead without either the A’s or Raiders since they both seem to show zero interest.

    As far as the inlet, I think it should be used as a ferry terminal and the entire area should be tailored more for recreational use. I could see more hotels along the shoreline, more marinas, water spots and activities like personal watercraft rentals, bikes, roller blading, etc. The emphasis should be more tailored to what San Diego did with Mission Bay.

    As far as the project not being more integrated with the surrounding east Oakland residential areas, there are natural borders all along these parcels which make integration with the neighborhood very difficult. We have railroad tracks, Bart Tracks, Damon Slough, the 73rd Avenue expressway. These all pose barriers which uniquely and naturally separate the neighborhoods from these 800 acres. Many neighborhoods have defined borders and there is nothing wrong with that. The major question should be wether or not the economic development contributes to jobs and economic activity for the entire area.

    • @Elmano – This is a good start.

      I agree that a ferry terminal would be a good and proper use. The issue how to accomplish that without significant disruption of the estuary as active wildlife habitat. All Bay and Tidelands are subject to severe restrictions on usage. An even larger land swap than the once currently conceived for the project would be required.

      The planners are willing to relocate Elmhurst Creek running through the complex (south of the Coliseum) to integrate the development better within. The project also aims to beautify Damon Slough and the Edgewater area. A large swath of housing is planned along San Leandro street to break down the borders presented by the railroad tracks. Even then, the changes are mostly to the benefit of the development itself. How can they better extend that into the established neighborhoods? The streetcar comment, while a pie-in-the-sky idea, is a good example of a way to integrate the neighborhoods. Some local residents will want that for the economic opportunities and availability of better services. Others will take an anti-gentrification stance and oppose that part or the entire project to varying degrees.

      • The beautification improvements are all very positive. I would run a street car line up 73rd avenue while also beautifying the entire expressway with new landscaping.

        The current 73rd Avenue / Edwards avenue link between the Coliseum and the 580 freeway is not very attractive. This entire expressway could really be very beautiful if cleaned up and relandscaped. I could visualize a street car line connecting Coliseum City, the waterfront, Bart, Amtrak, Oakland Airport Connector, Eastmont Town Center, and the new Leona Quarry housing development above 580.

      • With the EIR as it is written (I have read some, but not even half of it) is it possible for it to be used for a scaled back development that doesn’t include work across 880?

        It seems really strange that a ballpark/retail district should be held back by blocking the dredging of San Leandro Bay.

      • @jeff – Absolutely. It becomes a much different project in terms of scope. The whole point of the Specific Plan was to combine two efforts: new stadium development and planning for a large section of Oakland that is overdue for such work. It’s a huge gamble to bet on both happening, so if it doesn’t much of the work will be viewed as a huge waste.

    • A ferry terminal at that location would be fabulous, unfortunately as ML pointed out that may not be the easiest thing to accomplish, but if they can do it they really should.

  5. Assuming we have no football stadium on the site, what do we do with the huge surface parking lot and the huge footprint of the proposed stadium?

    Is Lew Wolff willing to fill all those acres with housing, hotels, light industrial, and retail, or does he turn it into Central Park west?

    These are all questions we should be asking of Lew Wolff’s “alternative plan” for the area. Has anyone seen Lew Wolff’s alternative plan for all those acres?

    Marine Layer?

    • If/when Wolff’s plan is presented, we’ll cover it with the same scrutiny as we are Coliseum City or previously, Fremont.

      Again, stop changing the subject. There is a plan in front of the public. It needs to be evaluated first.

      • Hasn’t Wolff made it perfectly clear that he wants no part of THIS project? Isn’t this blog about a “new ballpark?”

        I think Wolff should show everyone his alternative project since he says he’s not interested in Coliseum City but wants to build a new ballpark with his own development on Coliseum property?

        This blog is about a newballpark as far as I can tell, and not about Oakland economic development. Although, if you decided to go in that direction, I’d be your biggest fan and contributor, Marine Layer.

        Again, why are we not holding Lew Wolff accountable for a plan for a ballpark and development at the Coliseum since he wants no part of Coliseum City? Should Coliseum City even be brought up on this blog since the owner of the club which would occupy the stadium wants nothing to do with it?

      • @Elmano – Again, there is a project that is being considered. Lew Wolff has decided it’s not worth his time. He is well within his right to do so. The current project has been in the works for 3 years, with the plans only released in the last year. I don’t expect Wolff to take nearly as long to put something out, since he is already in talks with the JPA and an architect for a ballpark (Coliseum City doesn’t even have one of those). If the ENA expires with no extension, I expect to see something later during the offseason. He’s been working on it for maybe 6 months at most. If we don’t hear something before next Opening Day, Wolff will deserve plenty of criticism for stalling. As of now such criticism is highly premature.

        If he were to release something now, wouldn’t it just create confusion over how it works with Coliseum City? The public is already having a hard time digesting the current project. Better to let that run its course, then provide a follow-up.

        I really don’t give a crap whether you hold me in high regard. I’m following the news. This isn’t about pushing your agenda, or Wolff’s, or anyone else’s. I’m following legitimate newsworthy items. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that.

      • @ Elmano
        It’s my hope that Lew Wolff is working on that plan as we speak (write), it would be nice if we had more information then we do, but if Wolff is serious about building at the site, we will be finding out relatively soon.
        It was encouraging to find out that Wolff, Davis, and the JPA actually sat down together recently, as small a devilment as that may be, I was starting to wonder if that was even possible.

      • We can’t hold him accountable, as of yet, for two reasons:

        1. He hasn’t completed it yet.
        2. I wouldn’t expect him to show it until after the current ENA expires.

  6. Raiders-to-San Antonio talk is not to be dismissed.

    The Raiders play in an outdated stadium and last season ranked last in the NFL in average home attendance. The apathy could drive Davis out of Oakland.

    “I’ve talked with a number of my associates in the Oakland area,” McCombs told me. “I don’t know that they would be that upset (if the Raiders relocated). The Raiders need a new home. And they need a new following.”

    …Translation: The NFL won’t shed many tears if it gets out of Oakland.

    • Wow that is some exciting news. Who knew San Antonio wants to be a big player and have a NFL and NBA team.

    • Interesting. Wonder at this point if Davis is actually trying to gain leverage for an LA play? Because we know he’s not pursuing San Antonio to gain leverage over Oakland (since there’s none to gain).

      • Davis leverage? that was funny…

      • Yep. No point in trying to gain leverage over Oakland because you can’t draw blood from a stone. The Raiders want someone to pay for their stadium and it’s not going to be Oakland.

      • To have leverage, you first must have something (the Raiders don’t) that someone (LA or Oakland), is willing to give more (Oakland does not have /LA won’t give money), in order to have or gain it.
        Oakland would love to retain the Raiders, but Mark is not going to get more, then what is already on the table (infrastructure cost/tax breaks, if that’s even possible), LA could give more, but unlike Oakland they don’t have to, because they are the second largest media market in the country, and one of these teams, perhaps even two will eventually call LA home, if only one of them move there (Rams, Raiders, Chargers), they will get a second team through expansion, and dose LA even want the Raiders, if they have to take Mark along with them? I don’t think so, sense they have other options.
        Even if Oakland could afford to be leveraged against, with San Antonio, or LA, I think the city and county are finally tired (I hope), of the Davis BS, either take what we can offer or get your ass out.
        The only possible leverage Mark could have is with San Antonio, because they may be desperate and stupid enough to give him what he wants, a new venue without him doing a thing to get it.

  7. Translation, “PJK is hoping the Raiders leave Oakland and won’t shed many tears.”

  8. I don’t care one way or the other about the Raiders. But why all this continued talk about the Raiders supposedly having a deal with Oakland and now, we find out Raiders-to-San Antonio is heating up? I don’t believe Oakland can accommodate both the Raiders and A’s. The city will have to make a choice and the no-brainer choice is the A’s; 80+ dates a year vs. 10, $500 million stadium vs $1 billion stadium, A’s owners can do their own development of the site, etc.

    • PJK,

      Have you seen the huge surface parking lot next to the Raider stadium in the above renderings? If you take out the football stadium footprint and include that huge parking lot, you have a huge unused space. What would Wolff do with the the additional huge space?

      Wolff isn’t serious about any of this. Any serious party would have already shown a competing plan for the area. All Wolff has done is release the name of an architect as a PR stunt so that he can claim he’s negotiating in “good faith.”

  9. So it’s the fans fault that the Raiders are such a horrible product? “Good fans” are suppose to “support” a lousy product. I think I understand the logic.

    Even the Forty Niners could be considered a lousy product for the money and the inconvenience. Let’s see, inaccessible, uncomfortable hot stadium with thug fans knocking out other Forty Niner fans in the bathroom, overly expensive seats, more criminal arrests than any other NFL franchise, a less than honest and honorable ownership, classless coach and some players, etc., all this for some of the most expensive tickets in sports.

    After the game the “devoted” fans get to enjoy gridlock as they make their way to the freeway. The disloyal billionaire Yorks thank the fans for being part of the studio audience when they could have all watched the game at home in the comfort of their family room and big screen TV.

    Football fans over 25 years of age who get dressed up in jerseys with another man’s name on their back are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but at least Raider fans get their football fix at a discounted rate as well as a better climate along with much better transit. I think this simple fact makes Raider fans smarter than Santa Clara Forty Niner fans.

  10. Yep. 49er fans beating up other 49er fans at the baked, sunstroke-prone brand new $1.3 billion stadium. It’s 43 miles from Frisco while the TV stations and the league pretend the team is still in Frisco. And the traffic is so bad I’ve even seen people parking in my Light Rail-accessible neighborhood 5 miles from the stadium, festooned with all their 49ers garb. But the bottom line is: Al Davis took the Raiders out of the Bay Area in 1981 and the 49ers came in and proceeded to own the whole region. And they still do…I always thought a blatant sign of not having class was when the 49ers said they were “winning with class.” To me, the very definition of class is about humility. Thus, no one with any class would ever say, “I have class!”

    • You’re right. Al Davis messed everything up when he took them out of Oakland after all the sell outs and incredible support. The Raiders had a great thing going in Oakland. I’s compare the relationship with Oakland and the East Bay to what the Green Bay Packers have with their fans. It was a passionate but wholesome environment at Oakland Raider games.

      Davis, made an arrogant decision based on his belief that the Raiders were bigger than the fans and bigger than the community. He was wrong and the franchise continues to pay the price to this day.

      The City of Oakland also continues to pay the price to the time of 20 million dollars per year.

      • If the Raiders end up leaving again, the epitaph will read: The Raiders were a legendary, storied franchise during their first stay in Oakland, from 1960-1981. They left for the 1982 season and returned in 1995. But it was never the same.

      • @ pjk/Elmano
        Wow, I think we have found common ground. I believe we can all agree on Elmano’s, last statement.Well said…

  11. You hit the nail on the head with that one.

    • This 0-4 start and the A’s choking while both S.F teams enjoy winning success. .if the Giants win this world series…sigh.. I might switch. Same goes if the Raiders unless they start winning now. It would teach tough love to Davis and Wolff to sell the team or lose all east bay support

      • Switch, to the Giants and 49ers?
        I would rather not be a fan at all, I don’t have a real problem with the 49ers, doesn’t mean I pull for them either, but the Giants on the other hand in my view they are the biggest reason the A’s may leave the Bay Area altogether, I have no problem with the Giants fan base, but I sure do with the organization they pull for, as much as I want the A’s to stay in Oakland, I have a big problem with the Giants blocking San Jose.
        The Raiders and 49ers may have a friendly rivalry (mostly their fans), but they have actually helped each other out on several occasions with off the field things.
        It’s odd that the Bay Area baseball fans of both organizations get a long fairly well, while the front offices of each organization don’t seem not to care for each other, on the other hand the Bay Area football fans of both organizations, seems to despise each other, while the front offices of both organizations seem to be willing to work with each other.
        But switch, no way. Go A’s, Raiders, Warriors, Sharks, Cal.

  12. There are no conditions under which I would ever route for the Giants.

    • …and Nats go ahead 3-0. Maybe there’s still hope that the bad guys won’t win.

      • Shucks…I mean Washington can make a comeback in this series pjk.

        November is going to be a intense month. I wonder if or when Kaplan wins if she will negotiate in good faith with a
        Raiders and A’s management re:Coliseum City

      • Yes!

    • The only pipe dream is perhaps Mark believing someone in Oakland/East Bay is going to build a stadium for him, without a real risk on his part.
      It can be done in Oakland, if he wants to get under the load and do some of the lifting, but if not perhaps San Antonio will give him a completely free stadium, if so please “Don’t let the door knob hit you”

      • Davis is not going to get his free stadium in Oakland. And Oakland, for its part, could be about to get the same lesson that Seattle got when it pulled the same “Let the rich owners build their own stadium!” with the Sonics. But of course, none of it changes the reality that Oakland simply doesn’t have money to spend on stadiums. As an A’s fan who is apathetic toward the Raiders (I can’t stand the 49ers, though), the Raiders departure should pave the way for the A’s to stay in Oakland forever. No more fighting to keep all three teams, with the Raiders gone and the Warriors going. It’ll be A’s Town.

  13. from Jean Quan in that Oakland Mayor page: “Because of that work and some incredible teamwork and commitment from many others, today we are negotiating with the Raiders about building a new stadium at Coliseum City, with the world’s third-largest real estate firm at the table as an investor, and we have just signed a 10-year lease extension with the A’s.” …They’ve been negotiating with the Raiders for years and those negotiations have gone nowhere. Hence, the Raiders are now studying a move to San Antonio. Quan also talks about fighting to keep all three teams, which is akin to betting on a horse race after the race is over; the Warriors are gone whether she wants to recognize it or not.

  14. from that same mayoral candidate page, from one of the candidates: “City officials have unveiled plans for a new “Coliseum City,” with housing, retail, and restaurants along with three new athletic facilities. The problem with the plan, in addition to the departure of the Warriors, is that no developer has yet pledged to put a dollar into it.” …If Coliseum City isn’t DOA, I don’t know what it is.

    • The whole thing is so intellectually dishonest, it angers me. I want the politicians involved to have some type of negative consequence for pursuing paths have a 1% chance at success – and that’s what any proposal that includes building three new facilities in Oakland is, practically a lottery-ticket pipe dream.
      But the politicians involved currently face no consequence for proclaiming such false optimism. That’s a problem. The powerful people need to be realistic and make some tough choices, despite alienating certain groups. That would be some real leadership.

      • So if this candidate is correct, Coliseum City has never been more than a few fancy drawings and a whole lot of talk. Nothing more. That’s it.

      • Political Leadership in Oakland, elected officials are now, were int he beginning and will continue to be the biggest hurdle between the A’s and staying in Oakland.

        Queue the “Lew Wolff SUCKS?!?!?!” response in 3… 2… 1…

        Add in the new side of “Mark Davis SUCKS?!?!?!?!” when only a few months ago it was “Mark Davis is getting what he needs because he loves Oakland.”

    • Wow the SF Giants and 49ers continue to win
      More pressure is on Oakland Pols and sports leadership to get Coliseum City to happen without hurting taxpayers..regardless of what PJK says

      • How does this put pressure on anyone, again?

      • If Coliseum City has a monetary commitment of $0.00, then it’s nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that no one wants to pay for new facilities for the teams. That and to enable more stalling, stalling, stalling while keeping the teams in the existing venues for as long as possible.

      • @ pjk
        That $0.00 commitment includes the A’s and Raiders to this point; it’s easy to look at the failings of Oakland/Alameda County, but it takes two (or three), to make something happen.
        Not defending Oakland or Alameda County, as you know I have been highly critical of them as well, but if I ever need a detailed brake down of all their fallings, I’m sure I could count on you.

  15. The problem with the A’s is that they have low character ownership. Fisher. Wolff and Beane are all low character. Beane won’t even admit his mistakes while Wolff is dishonest and talks out of both sides of his mouth.

    This is why A’s fans sit here wondering what happened while Giant fans are celebrating in San Francisco.

    Also, this ownership, and Billy Beane in particular, thrive on the “small market” non-sense and the, “This is shit, and here we are” commentary from the movie moneyball, as built in excuses for their dishonesty and incompetence.

    No more excuses from this dishonest, deceitful and incompetent ownership. They only have themselves to blame for squandering he potential in their market year after year.

    The only reason to support this team in my view, while holding your nose due to the reality of this ownership, is becuase they are an Oakland civic treasure. Other than that, I could care less about this dishonest and incompetent organization.

    • There goes Elmano, whining about the A’s owners again. Did the A’s ruin the current stadium? Or did the city/county do that? Is it the A’s or the City of Oakland continually talking about being “in negotiations” with the Raiders, even though these so-called negotiations have proven fruitless for several years? If the A’s ownership, committed to keeping the A’s in the Bay Area, is “low character,” what does that say the Raiders, who are clearly cozying up to San Antonio (and probably LA, too)? Hey Elmano – why don’t you ask your Oakland politicians “Where’s the beef” on Coliseum City? Several years in the making and no construction agreements and no money committed? What’s that about?

      • The Raiders, Warrior and the Forty Niner ownerships are also low character, as far as I’m concerned. If that makes you feel any better. Maybe it’s a “out of touch, don’t care about anyone else, but me” detached billionaire type of thing.

        If the Raiders leave again, Oakland will be just fine. After all, homes in Oakland are appreciating faster than in SF and San Jose according to the latest story in the Chronicle. Los Angeles managed to survive with NFL football while Detroit struggles despite for pro franchises.

        If anything, the Raiders leaving may leave additional disposable income in people’s pockets to support local Oakland restaurants, small businesses and entertainment venues like the new fabulous “Plank” in Jack London Square.

  16. I’m not going to get drawn into another of your deceptive arguments about things such as housing prices (in which we all know San Jose is miles ahead of Oakland). Since you won’t ask Oakland “where’s the beef” on Coliseum City, are you acknowledging that the whole thing appears to be going nowhere and the Raiders are probably gone? That would be good news for A’s fans, not good news for Raiders fans (many of whom, of course, are the same people).

  17. Hello my name is Miguel Garcia. I’ve been following the blog for the past month. Good work guys. I’m from So Cal but I’m currently a grad student @ San Jose State in the Anthropology department. I’m doing my thesis on the development of sports stadiums and since I’m in the Bay and also a Raiders fan from So Cal, I’m focusing on this issue in Oakland with the A’s and Raiders and a new stadium. I would love to talk to one of you in the near future about this whole thing. It would really help with my project. If you wouldn’t mind, you can email me at:
    Thanks and Great blog!

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.