Schaaf proposal would allow competing proposals from Raiders and A’s

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf wants to extend the Coliseum City ENA. But that comes with one huge condition. From BANG’s Matthew Artz:

“…the 90-day extension, expected to receive City Council backing on Tuesday, would come with a condition that the two teams are free to offer competing plans.”

In effect, the Raiders and A’s would be pitted against each other, and also against Coliseum City.

It’s a bold and wise move by Schaaf that’s likely to garner much broader support from Alameda County than Coliseum City has so far. It would also force Mark Davis off the sidelines, into a role with much greater involvement in the stadium process. Previously, Davis had been content to be mostly hands-off, allowing developers to sell him on their plans while remaining detached. This would also explain the promotion of Marc Badain to Raiders team president. Badain, the CFO and interim team president, was the lead in Oakland stadium talks to this point.

What does this mean for Coliseum City? That depends on how much lifting the Raiders want to do. Badain’s the long-time numbers guy for the team, not a developer. It seems most logical for the Raiders to partner with Coliseum City, since some $5 million has already been spent on studies for the project, including an in-progress EIR. The plan already favors the Raiders over the A’s, so unless Davis dislikes some part of the plan so severely that he’d rather strike out on his own, it makes the most sense for him to partner with CC. At the very least he’d have to sign a completely nonbinding letter of interest or something similar.

If the Raiders choose to craft their own plan, Coliseum City as we know it is dead, since it would be competing against the two teams it’s trying to sign. It’s unlikely that CC would be able to satisfy both teams and its own investors to all parties’ desired benefit, especially now that the amount of land being discussed is merely the 120-acre Coliseum complex (out to Hegenberger), no additional land involved. That’s also a game-changer, since shrinking the focus to 120 acres would preclude further public land acquisitions by the City, County, or JPA.

Meanwhile, the A’s have been waiting for this moment for more than a year. Lew Wolff, as well as most of the discerning public, knew for some time that Coliseum City was serious pipe. Wolff will legally have the opportunity to present his own plan, and the City/County can decide which plan is best, or if no presented plan works. There’s a series of questions everyone will have to answer before a single shovel can hit the ground. Among those questions:

1. Which of the venues will be demolished to make way for new development? Neither team wants to play in the Coliseum long term, yet neither wants to build a new stadium for the other since it would blow up their own respective budget. So it might make the most sense to allow the other team to stay at the Coliseum, which would be renovated to some degree (or not) to make it more suitable long-term. Naturally, the Coliseum’s current condition is much better suited for football than baseball thanks to Mount Davis. Plans could also call for the demolition of the arena, which represents 8 valuable acres within the complex.

2. Who pays for the infrastructure? While it was assumed that the City/County would pay for new infrastructure, the introduction of competitive bidding gives them some leverage in terms of allowing the developer to pay for some or all of that cost. That cost would eat into each bidder’s bottom line, so the challenge for the bidders is to balance that public desire with their own internal projections. For instance, a bidder could adjust to assuming infrastructure costs by adding additional square footage to offset. However, keep in mind that Coliseum City’s full buildout at the complex called for around $400 million in infrastructure.


Colored lines represent easements for utilities, some of which may have to be relocated. Cost could run into tens or hundreds of millions.


3. How much does one team’s plan respect the other team? Both owners have expressed an interest in limiting the construction of parking garages in order to preserve surface parking. That’s also valuable, developable land. Again, how does the bidder strike the balance? Does one team’s bid kick the other team to the curb?

4. Does either plan pay off the existing Coliseum debt load? The original Coliseum City plan had no provision to pay off the $100 million at the Coliseum. Floyd Kephart added that responsibility to his plan. Lew Wolff’s alternative also appears to take care of this. If the Raiders propose their own plan do they offer the same? And what about the $100 million owed on the arena, which may not be paid off if/when the Warriors leave?

5. How does the development fit in with Oakland’s planning strategy? A hidden issue in all this redevelopment talk is how the future Coliseum will affect Oakland, especially East Oakland. Will it add much needed affordable housing? Will it gentrify East Oakland? Could it attract one major employer in a campus setting, or numerous smaller companies? Would the retail component be targeted properly, or could it end up with a bunch of empty shell buildings bringing in few rents? What if the retail part is just more big box stores? And how does the plan work with Oakland’s desire to create a thriving transit hub? Does that plan compete with downtown Oakland?

This is finally the emergence of the adult conversation we have long been waiting for. Kudos to Mayor Schaaf for acting so quickly to allow that conversation to begin in earnest. There’s actually a decent chance that Oakland can come out of this looking good in that the City won’t be ripped off. It’s a better chance than it had previously. It gives Oakland new, real leverage. Oakland should approve the ENA with the new conditions, and let the best team win.

Perhaps the City should fly in Mills Lane to judge the proceedings

Perhaps the City should fly in Mills Lane to judge the proceedings

107 thoughts on “Schaaf proposal would allow competing proposals from Raiders and A’s

  1. Smart move by Schaaf, perhaps we will begin to see who is serious about this location ( if anyone), and who is not.

  2. This could be good news for the A’s and A’s fans. But Wolff’s plan is unlikely to make any accommodations for the Raiders (nor should it, since there’s already a new NFL stadium they can use nearby). Will Oakland/Alameda County dismiss the A’s plan because it does nothing to make a $1 billion football stadium used 10 days a year happen? There’s a good chance they would. …re: Sparks. How do we know the new Oakland plan is not just Propaganda?

  3. Neither team is going to accommodate the other. I feel that if the A’s present a plan and it is rejected by the city/county, that will be by far the clearest sign yet to MLB that it won’t work in Oakland.

  4. Interesting…guess this helps explain why Doug boxer is not on the PR trail claiming MLB is still interested in HT

  5. “Now” rather than “not”

  6. If I am Davis, I spend my money on gutting the coliseum. $500mil max, Gets you a new stadium. He even has said he doesn’t need anything fancy. This is such a wiser use of his money, and probably the fastest way of getting a new venue.

    • He can’t do it with the A’s there.

    • I agree. I really think a remodel is the only way Oakland get to keep a team and it’s going to be cheaper to do it for the Raiders because they can still utilize Mt. Davis in a football situation.

      C.C. just seems to me to be nothing but pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Forgive my ignorance, but have there been any studies to see if there is even any demand for all of this “ancillary development” that is supposed to finance this whole thing? Seems like a huge gamble that could be financially catastrophic for the community of Oakland if it doesn’t pan out like they hope. Another recession (or lack of getting out of this one) and then what? I think it’s just downright fiscally irresponsible.

      • Excellent thought DTP! There are massive projects planned for Silicon Valley that haven’t broke ground yet due to demand/Tennant issues, yet some believe Coli City would be a massive money, profit maker for the Raiders right off the bat (or in theory A’s). Raiders should simply focus on building new structure around current Mt. Davis and smaller, less grandiose entertainment district next to new Coli. City within a city most likely a money looser like you said.

  7. There’s no reason why both teams can’t stay. Mayor Shaaf was very smart in proposing that both teams submitt their own plans.

    Each team gets 100 acres for their stadium and ancillary development. Both teams contribute to large garages on the periphery of the development around the former Malibu Grand Prix site or at the former Homebase site on Hegenberger. The coliseum remains is use by both teams as construction begins on two new stadiums on the now opened up surface parking lots.

    Let’s see how Lew Wolff wiggles out of this.

    • @Elmano – You have addressed NONE of the challenges I outlined in my post. The land being discussed is now down to 120 acres, 30 of which are already taken up by the existing venues. Your response is why I can’t take your comments seriously. You never attempt to address the real challenges. If it was as easy as making a Solomonesque split-the-baby move it would’ve been done years ago.

      • Why is I all of a sudden down to only 120 acres when at one point it was 800 acres and then 200 acres. The map where you show the utilities is close to the 800 original acres.

        Even so, 120 acres is more than enough land for two stadiums along with some ancillary development. How many acres needed for two stadium footprints? Maybe 30 acres?

        The current coliseum footprint would be torned down for additional ancillary development after both teams move into their respective new venues. There’s no reason why acreage can’t be used if needed considering we were talking about 800 acres at one point.

        This development should be developed by both teams for their specific venues. Yeah, let’s split the baby right down the middle and let Davis and Wolff each be responsible for developing their own ballpark and ancillary development.

      • Do you even read articles, Nav? You’re an idiot.

    • Lie to yourself more. Everyone else is rolling their eyes at you, including both teams.

  8. Pretty sure Wolff will help “accommodate” Mark Davis, if you know what I mean. The true prize awaits 40 miles to the $outh. And the “enjoyable ride” continues…

    And just for the record, it appears Davis/NFL were the ones proposing to bring in their own developer for the Coli (independent of Kephart). It’s not as if Schaaf all of a sudden threw this on Marks lap and now he’s being forced off the sidelines. Go Hawks!

  9. Rhamesis,

    That’s really uncalled for and very unprofessional on your part. Those were my ideas. I wasn’t quoting any article.

    The points you bring up will all be addressed in due time and the bonds as well as the infrastructure can be negotiated or split 50/50. There’s plenty of room for development in this part of Oakland near the airport while not adversely affecting downtown Oakland. You really owe me an apology as well as your readers for your uncalled personal attack.


    • No, I don’t owe you an apology. You owe it to yourself to actually educate yourself on these topics, either by reading the original articles or my analyses, or by consulting other works. Saying “they can just split it up” shows you have zero grasp on how the market and development process works. You’ve been at this way too long to be so thoroughly ignorant about these details. Either educate yourself or stop wasting my time.

    • Nobody owes you an apology for anything. You routinely insinuate that people here are racists for not blindly supporting Oakland and for your lack of business knowledge.

  10. Having an opinion is “wasting you time?”

    No wonder no Oakland A’s fans post here. And then you redicule the few that do. Calling someone an “idiot” makes you feel better about yourself?

    Stop being a mouthpiece for Lew Wolff and stop being so threaten by different ideas that don’t follow the “I got kicked out of Oakland” narrative that you attempt to propagate for your boss Lew Wolff.

    Both teams can be accommodated. You know this. You hate to hear that narrative because your boss hates to hear that narrative. Grow up and stop fronting for Wolff and his San Jose allies.

    You’ve always brought up “insurmountable” issues for Oakland while never holding San Jose to that same scrutiny. Grow up and stop with the silly school yard insults.

    • How can they be accommodated? Provide specifics. I’ve done everything I could to try to figure it out. To me it doesn’t work for every stakeholder: Teams, Developer, City, County, Community. If you want to keep peddling that line, you’re gonna have to show your work. Talk density, infrastructure costs, subsidies. I’ve done the work repeatedly. Where’s yours?

      As long as you continue to repeat the same tripe ad nauseum, I am going to call you out on it. Don’t like it? There’s the door…

      • Explain to me exactly what’s wrong with splinting it down the middle. I’ve already given you my idea regarding where to place the garages and then developing the current stadium foot print.

        Why wouldn’t that work? Of course, besides the fact the Lew Wolff doesn’t really want to stay in Oakland.

      • Math, ignoramus. Let’s say you split it down the middle. Then of the Raiders’ 60 yards, they have to devote 15 to the stadium. That leaves 45. They have a $500 million funding gap. They won’t be able to use the entire 45 acres because some of that has to be streets and open space, so maybe 30-35 acres. How exactly are they going to get $15 million in usable profit per acre ($500M/35 ac.) out of this? That’s not my puzzle to solve, that’s YOUR puzzle. YOU do the math, lazy.

    • You’ve never once made an argument based primarily in fact. You’re only capable of making emotional arguments. You have repeatedly promised to stop posting here. You have repeatedly broken that promise. That makes you a liar and nothing more.

  11. @Nav: please don’t blame Wolff – Oakland city officials are responsible for creating plenty of bad-will against the A’s during the pre-Wolff days (it started when the Raiders returned from LA) – by funding upgrades for both the Raiders and Dubs – and meanwhile hosing the A’s. (The long time bad will between Oakland and the A’s (with Oakland being the culprit) is another factor which is rarely discussed. Oakland city officials have a history of favoring the Raiders over the A’s.

    • “Hosing the A’s”. Didn’t the A’s sign on to the deal while getting 40,000 new green seats, the luxurious Westside Club, new suites that they fill up against certain teams like the Giants, Yankees and also fireworks nights?

      After all this Schott and Hoffman sued Oakland for 50 million dollars.

      The A’s got plenty out of the deal and they would have been blackmailing the city if those improvements made becuase of the Raiders return had not been there.

      • The green-ness of the seats generates $0 in additional revenue for the A’s and does not make up for losing the view of the Oakland Hills. The Westside Club also generates virtually no additional revenue for the A’s because it is open to everyone on game day for no additional charge; there are no premium priced seats at A’s games other than the Diamond Level. The glut of suites that the A’s don’t need has driven down prices to absurdly low levels and also has proven to be a nominal source of additional revenue for them, at best. I am not aware that the A’s had a choice or “signed off” on any of this; if they did they were fools to do so.

  12. There you go again. You are one classless individual. Now it’s “ignoramus.” Have you considered naming rights, advertising, etc? Can you build a hotel on one acre? Can you make a 15 million profit from one hotel? There are plenty of ways to generate revenue from 45 acres including acquiring even more land.

    Shame on you.

    • If you want to keep whining about how I’m treating you while not attempting to answer the questions, we have nothing else to discuss. Your shit is tired. Also, how do you get $15 million in profit out of a hotel? And once you do that how do you address the other 29-34 acres? Go ahead, explain away.

    • Just leave for christ’s sake you sorry, willfully ignorant, race-card-playing liar. Shame on you for being a bad person.

    • The answer to your question is no. No, you can’t make $15 million from one hotel. This is especially true when you’re literally surrounded by hotels in that area already. And naming rights, advertising, etc. might MIGHT account for $100 million over several years. And that’s in the best of cases. Odds are that you’ll net considerably less. On a 120 acres, you might be able to fully pay for a $500 million stadium from the development, etc. You will NOT be able to get $1.5 billion off of it (the cost of a football stadium and baseball stadium). You won’t even get half of that. And as for acquiring most land, well that presents an additional cost in an of itself. You do have to pay for that land. And if it the land is tied to a bigger project, the current owner of that land is going to want a premium for it as they’ll know that the value of their land means a lot to you and that it will increase after you’re done. You really show zero sense of how much people will be willing to pay for anything or the value of the land. You’ve grossly over estimated it.

  13. Here, let me explain how you get that kind of revenue out of the 35 acres in question. I’m sure you’ll censore this since it will make you look foolish.

    Signature Properties is building 3100 units of housing on 30 acres of their 60 acre Brooklyn Basin development. The other 30 acres will be parks.

    So now we know that Wolff and Davis can at least fit 3100 units of housing on their 35 acres of ancillary development. If they cal sell eact unit for 500,000 on average and spend 300,000 building each unit, they come out with a $200,000 profit per unit times 3100 units. What’s $200,000 x 3100 units? You come out with a profit of $620,000,000.

    There you go. There’s your funding gap made possible by 35 acres.

    • No, this just shows off your typical simplistic view. Signature is not building anything yet. They are still prepping the land. In fact, no one’s really building anything in Oakland right now. Why? Take a look at these three articles:

      Why are no developers building in Oakland’s hot housing market?
      Oakland highrises struggle to break ground as developers deal with razor-thin margins
      New Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf ready to push for developer impact fees

      I’m sure you’ll just dismiss this as yet another SF rag attacking Oakland, but in all articles the sources are Oakland developers and the mayor herself. Fact is, it’s going to take a lot to get the margins to reach the levels where it’s worth building in Oakland, and even if they get to that point those margins will be offset by developer impact fees. It’s not as easy as, “Let’s build 6,200 units here. Here you go.” Then if you want to tack on $200k per unit along with margins, you’re at the point where you can’t sell or rent the units because suddenly they’re at SF SOMA prices – in East Oakland. No, that’s not gonna wash, Nav.

      That doesn’t factor in the community and affordable housing activists who’ll want something to provide below market rate housing, if there aren’t outright protests about gentrification in East Oakland. If that cost is borne by the developers, that’s more cutting into their margins, and if not the cost will be borne by the City. Except there’s no affordable housing fund anymore thanks to redevelopment’s demise, so who’d pay for it, the teams? They have their own subsidy demands.

      After all of that, what happens if there’s another economic correction, or god forbid a recession? How does the project become feasible then? Wolff got bit by that already once.

      You’re gonna have to do better than that, Nav.

      • Yes, Signature Properties is prepping the land before they begin building the first of their 3100 housing units. You’re implying that these units are not going to be built. They will be built just like the 104 units at the “Hive” on Broadway are currently being built by Signature Properties.

        I’ve already given you a very realistic and conservative price for the potential NEW units at the Coliseum area at $500,000 per unit based on $300,000 building cost for a 1,000 square foot unit. Who said anything about SoMa prices?

        The fact is that there in more than enough space considering 60 acres per team for the stadium along with the ancillary development. It doesn’t have to be all housing either. As a matter of fact, Signature Properties 60 acres could have technically fit both stadiums AND the 3100 units of housing.

        Why are you always selling Oakland short? Oakland is hot right now and the rents prove it. If you can’t build in Oakland right now, you’ll never be able to build.

        Gentrification? No one is going to protest building in that inclosed area of East Oakland. The residents there want more development and more jobs.

      • $500k is lower than than the peak 2006 levels. Construction costs have only gone up. Here’s another developer quote, since you stubbornly won’t learn:

        “Paul Zeger, partner at Polaris Pacific, said stick-built townhomes need to garner $500 a square foot, mid-rise buildings need about $650 and highrises need about $700 a square foot in order to justify building.”

        That’s to make regular margins. So to subsidize the stadium, it’s another $200/SF, or $900/SF total. Now that’s SF market cost. Everything at the Coliseum would have to be 8-20 stories or higher to make it worth the investment.

        No one’s going to protest gentrification? You must not have seen the comments provided by several community groups during the EIR comment period. Or do you just tune out the stuff you don’t want to read or hear?

      • Wow RM, this comment pretty much bolstered what I’ve been saying all along about building in East Oakland (and what DTP stated above as well). Having development rights to the Coli doesn’t ensure squat re a new football or baseball stadium. Perhaps to risky for anyone to truly admit. Good night all…

  14. Honestly ML, I have no idea how or why you’ve been able to keep your finger of the ban button with Elmano. He’s hijacked yet another thread while adding precisely nothing of any value to the conversation and then has the stones to accuse other people of what he’s doing (and more). I know it’s your call, but I don’t think I’m alone when I say it’s time for him to go. It’s not about differing opinions. It’s the offensive and willfully ignorant way he presents them. Everyone already doesn’t take him seriously and views his presence as a joke, and all he does is diminish the value and quality of the discussion that is otherwise had. Someone who think 10 > 15 can’t be reasoned with or expected to form any factual, logical, or coherent argument.

    • @SMG – Stop asking for me to boot Elmano. I don’t need any help running the comments.

      • I never implied you needed help running them. No need for you to get so defensive when people other than yourself call out Elmano.

      • You and Elmano are the most inflammatory commenters here. You both make my work tougher.

      • As you can imagine, I disagree in the strongest possible terms with that comparison. But whatever. The Elmano threads are the only ones that ever devolve into chaos, and I think that’s pretty telling.

  15. I’m not hijacking anything. We were talking about the new proposal put out Libby Shaaf and I presented my own ideas. I was then insulted for no reason. I did the math and now I’m waiting for a response from Marine Layer.

    Do you want a blog of 100% San Jose centric opinions?

    • You got the response and you’re still denying raw numbers that have more backing than anything you’ve posted. What exactly do you think you’re accomplishing here? You’re certainly not convicing anyone and you’re not even endearing anyone to yourself, your opinions, or Oakland. There are numerous pro-Oakland people on here that are infinitely better representatives of that side of the argument than you are.

  16. I’m a little disappointed with all of the personal attacks in this thread. We can be a little more civilized than this.

    • I’m disappointed in myself at times too. Then I’m reminded that I’m the only person moderating these comments and no one else is doing it. You want the job? It’s thankless and pays nothing.

      • Many of us (including myself) are very grateful for the great work you do here, ML. Perhaps we don’t say so often enough.

  17. It’s apparent that the Coliseum site land acreage will not be sufficient enough to provide the necessary ancillary development to generate enough profits for the building of two stadiums, and may even be still questionable for the construction of just one sports facility. Oakland may have to ultimately decide between a Raiders stadium project, or going with a Lew Wolff project for the A’s. Another possibility could be that no stadium deal is worked out and that both the A’s and Raiders will have determined that their respective stadium projects are just too risky without some sufficient degree of public funding. Lastly, I do believe that Lew Wolff will be playing hardball with MLB, if the A’s are forced to remain in the East Bay. Permanent revenue sharing could be the game changer that ultimately keeps the A’s in Oakland. .

    • We have talked about this several times before, I totally agree with you there is no way MLB can expect Wolff to build in Oakland without the guarantee of revenue sharing being part of the deal. After all it’s MLB that is restricting the A’s to two county’s out of nine, within there own territory.

  18. Wolff said he wouldn’t be satisfied, without complete control. He is also a master developer, so with this action helpfully we will get an idea of what he thinks can be done at the site.

  19. Dayum….

    • @ Larry E
      I guess you’re response to what I said, was meant to state the obvious? But there is nothing about Wolff, and his intentions throughout that have been obvious. Unless you want to court, the obvious fact that he would rather not build in Oakland.

      • Lakeshore: Would the owners of teams in many depressed MLB cities choose to build right in those cities if they were getting no financial assistance whatsoever from taxpayers? Maybe not. Wolff is expected to build privately in a city that may be on the upswing but has nowhere near the financial wherewithal of economies in Frisco and San Jose…Meanwhile, I still read, all the time, calls for Wolff to “sell the team” to some mysterious hero waiting to make a go of it on his own dime in Oakland, disregarding return on investment.

      • @ pjk

        No, I agree with you. I don’t think they would.
        That’s part of what makes this situation so crazy, I don’t fill it’s a Wolff, or Oakland is wrong, I fill both have blame along with many others.

  20. I have no dog in this fight. I’m not an A’s fan and I don’t live in the Bay Area. I’m just a person who enjoys seeing ball games at different stadiums who found this site awhile back and finds this whole saga to be incredibly interesting. I didn’t care where the eventually new A’s stadium was built, as long as it eventually happened and I got to see a game there. However, after reading Elmano’s comments of this site on a regular basis, I now root with all my heart that the A’s build anywhere but Oakland. Good job, buddy!

  21. Great comment in one of the articles ML posted: There seems to be an unrealistic expectation that because A’s owners are rich and the team is making money that they should be spending their own money or not taking a paycheck in order to support this team, neglecting to acknowledge that nobody gets rich by spending their own money and working for free.

  22. Now Wolff gets to present a proposal that will exclude the Raiders and put himself in a position to be “kicked out of Oakland.”

    The beauty of asking MLB to get rid of Howard Terminal as a viable option puts Wolff in a great position. It’s interesting that Wolff could have gotten much more from ancillary development at Howard terminal right next to Jack London Square but instead Wolff and Fisher decided to put themselves squarely in the middle of Coliseum City where real estate values are not as high.

    Oakland is being used by these billionaires in a horrible game of chess. It really is a form of economic racism when the A’s and Warriors exploit a city for its disposable income and then look to invest in other cities when it comes time to infuse capital into an area. Instead of building up Oakland, they use the city and then toss it aside.

    MLB has a dark history of racism and to this day it still perpetuating economic disinvestment in cities like Oakland. MLB is doing it currently in Atlanta by relocating to the suburbs from a perfectly fine stadium in an African American neighborhood. How many MLB owners are African American, Asian American, Latino or Women? It’s a gold ole boys club made up of old rich white men who have no problem disinvesting in certain areas. This is why Oakland has never been “viable” to Wolff and Fisher.

    • Wow!

    • There you go again, accusing people of being of being racist with literally ZERO evidence to support those libelous assertions.

      • And on that note, I straight up hope you get sued for libel.

      • Zero evidence? Look what the Warriors are doing to Oakland? 100 straight sell-outs in a 19,000 seat arena in Oakland and they’re taking their money over to San Francisco while not giving two licks about what happens to Oakland. Fisher and Wolff come from the same tribe.

      • That’s not evidence. PROVE that Wolff and the A’s have engaged in racially discriminatory behavior with facts and figures, not just your opinion which you are claiming is fact. Prove that any of these teams racially discrminate against their fan bases. Spoiler: you can’t because no such evidence exists. And you are skating a very fine legal line, one side of which you can be held legally liable for your words.

  23. Why isn’t a city in the geographic center of the very wealthy Bay Area featuring great weather and public transportation not considered “viable?”

    • Still waiting on you to prove those charges of racism. Or are you just changing the subject because you can’t (rhetorical question)?

  24. I find it encouraging that Lew will finally get the opportunity to create his own plan. He’s a developer and he clearly knows what type of ancillary development he thinks would complement the ballpark and provide some return on his investment. Shrinking the size of the development would seem to make the project more manageable and would seem to decrease the cost required for infrastructure improvements from $400MM to something more affordable.
    Assuming Davis comes up with his own plan, I worry about how the choice between the plans will be made and what criteria will be used, given the city’s dubious track record in making decisions regarding its sports teams.

    • Marine Layer, has just told us that Wolff can’t make money at the Coliseum since the homes would have to cost what they do in San Francisco. Why does Wolff even bother to play games if he views Oakland as “not viable.”

      Kicking the Raiders out so that MAYBE we can sit down and work something out with Wolff, while he has Oakland over a barrel as the last remaining franchise, seems like a lose lose situation for the City of Oakland.

      • nav – I never said no one could make money at the Coliseum. I was explaining how difficult it would be for two teams to make it work given a split of a very limited amount of land. A ballpark at the Coliseum wouldn’t have a $500-600 million gap, at worst half of that. That’s a much easier goal to reach if a team is trying to bridge that ~$200 million gap. Again the lesson goes right over your head.

        As far as the racism angle, you all but denied the impact of gentrification and displacement any development at the Coliseum would have on East Oakland. I suppose that’s fine for you as long as Oakland is the city being exploited, eh? Schaaf made it clear during the campaign and when she took over as mayor – No selling Oakland’s soul for growth. Any plan that redevelops Oakland will have to be compatible with that strategy, which should lead to a lively debate about Oakland’s future. Coliseum City may or not fit, but that debate needs to be had. It’s much bigger than retaining sports teams for some people’s sense of civic pride.

  25. What’s the racial and ethnic make-up of MLB ownership? We all know why Oakland isn’t “viable” to Wolff and his banker friends. It certainly isn’t the city’s great geographic location, its public transportation, or its great climate.

    Why are the Warriors leaving Oakland after such great success? Any guesses?

    • Look at all that proof you don’t have. Prove that the Warriors are prejudiced against black people. You saying it doesn’t make it true. Provide E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

    • Uhm, I’ll take a wild guess. How about the Warriors are moving because they can make more money in SF than in Oakland.

      Right or wrong, sports is a business. The owners want to make money. Sports franchises make money off of wealthy fans, large corporations and global brand recognition.

      This doesn’t mean Oakland is inferior to SF. I don’t live in either city, but given a choice I would choose to live in many parts of Oakland before SF. That being said, SF beats Oakland in all of these categories.

      • Is it right? No it’s not. It’s a form of disinvestment in an area where you have been very successful and now you turn your back on that area. It’s wrong and its economic racism. Sorry, I can’t minimize this and give the billionaire owners a pass simply because of greed.

      • Cite your sources, Nav. And no, your libelous opinions are not a source.

    • No one has said Oakland isn’t viable for an NBA team, at least if it’s the only one in the region. The Warriors are moving because they can make more money in San Francisco and realize greater control over their destiny than they could at the 3 tenant, 2 landlord C-F that is the Oakland/Alameda County Coliseum. Simple as that. Money has no skin color.

      It should also be noted that SF has better public transportation than Oakland (3 major transit systems plus ferries that serve the entire Bay Area) and a better geographic location than Oakland by virtue of its far easier access from the South Bay. Weather is irrelevant for an indoor sport.

      • The Warriors will have better public transportation in San Francisco then they currently have in Oakland?

        So, it really is not about replacing the 19,000 people in Oakland with the 18,000 fans in San Francisco. It’s really just about greed and being closer to certain people.

        It’s funny how sports fans never hold rich sports owners accountable for their decisions to abandon certain communities.

      • So your argument is that literally none of the fans that attend games at Oracle will attend games in San Francisco… that’s a beyond foolish thing to say.

  26. Marine Layer,

    Earlier you seem to have some doubts about the 3100 units of housing ever being built at Brooklyn Basin due to over saturation of the market in the short term.

    I’m just curious in light of you bringing up the building costs for current construction, how Wolff would make money at the Coliseum. If the cost for stick housing is 500 per square foot, and you can only go five stories high with that type of housing, how does Wolff make the density or lack of density work?

    Also, Oakland can’t put itself at the mercy of someone who really doesn’t want to be in Oakland while kicking out the team which has expressed its desire to remain in Oakland. Hopefully both teams will present a plan to include the other franchise.

    As far as gentrification and building at the Coliseum, no one would be displaced since its surface parking lots bordered by the 880 freeway, Damon Slough, Hegenberger Road, and the train tracks. It pretty much will be a self-contained area and I don’t think it will have a huge affect on the already increasing rents in the surrounding areas. You already have 1,000 square foot homes renting for $1700 per month around the Coliseum Area.

    • Yet again you misinterpret my explanation. Eventually Brooklyn Basin will be built. It will be done over several years because of the usual phasing you see with large projects, and because putting 3100 units for sale in a short time frame is a good way to create a housing glut in Oakland.

      My guess is that Wolff would do what he was planning to do in Fremont – sell some of the entitlements to other developers who are willing to bet on a continued rise in Oakland without needing to cash in right away.

      Do you understand how gentrification works? 880 and Damon Slough aren’t moats around the Coliseum. If the Coliseum becomes more attractive on a year-round basis, it will naturally cause the real estate market around the Coliseum to become more speculative, potentially forcing out residents who can’t afford newly hiked rents or developers who want to demolish and redevelop their own corners. It’s a cascading effect.

  27. So my desire to see the A’s and Warriors invest in Oakland while making Oakland’s economy stronger, thereby increasing Oakland general fund, is “exploiting Oakland.”

    I guess you’d rather see San Jose “exploited” so that the San Jose civic leaders can increase THEIR civic pride. What about the empty relic arenas sitting at the Coliseum if the Warriors, A’s and Raiders leave? Do you care about that at all? Do you think it’s right what the Warriors are doing to Oakland?

    • It is absolutely exploiting Oakland to an extent. In your fantasy land there are no negative repercussions to development and growth, because you’ve never considered the possibility. That is your trademark ignorance at work. I’m astounded that you rail about certain issues for years at various message boards yet you don’t have the basic understanding of how markets work.

  28. I know exactly how markets work. I’m glad you have Oakland’s best interests at heart. How about the increased rents in San Jose should a ballpark be built at the Diridon site? Are you all for those increases in rent?

    You won’t even acknowledge what the Warriors are doing in wrong and you could care less about what happens to that area of Oakland should all these teams disinvest from the area. That says a lot Marine Layer. The goal here is to get the A’s to San Jose. Everyone knows this.

    • I don’t have a position one way or another. I just accept that the market will be affected. It’s on city planning to mitigate that effect. The fact is that the “development subsidy to pay for a stadium” model can only work in Oakland at this point because only Oakland has the available land at the Coliseum. If you really think this is about Oakland vs. San Jose, you really are a blind, sad individual. Right and wrong? Tell displaced families how morally right your position is.

      • It’s not about Oakland vs San Jose? You could’ve fooled me.

        So you don’t find fault in the Warrior leaving after such success in Oakland?

      • Warriors leaving? They are the Bay Area’s team. No I don’t have a problem with it if they’re paying for it.

        No, this is not about Oakland vs. San Jose. This is all about what Oakland is willing to do to keep its teams. SJ only enters the picture of Oakland doesn’t respond.

  29. The Warriors are the “Bay Area’s team” until they get to San Francisco and become the San Francisco Warriors.

    I guess you can’t be the “Bay Area’s” team and call yourself the Oakland Warriors. I wonder why the San Jose Sharks are not called the “Golden State Sharks” since they’re the “Bay Area’s hockey team?” Just another example of “Golden State” Warriors anti-Oakland economic racism

    And now, they’re ready to send the Coliseum area into a full economic depression with fewer patrons for the hotels and restaurants on Hegenberger near Oakland International. But who cares. It’s only Oakland and the billionaires need to make MORE money in SF.

    • If you’re gonna make claims about an economic depression you better substantiate it. Real numbers. Does it outweigh the current subsidy?

    • So then you would argue that both the Giants and 49ers are racist organizations simply for moving out of Candlestick Point, or the (Golden) Seals leaving Oakland for Cleveland?

      • Yeah, Id say yes to the Forty Niner question. No doubt about it. They threw one of their players under the bus once they were eliminate from the playoffs. That’s one of the very best examples not wanting to build in an African American area of San Francisco. Horrible organization.

      • So then you’re ignoring the fact that the city willfully helped push them out under Gavin Newsom’s leadership, and you totally ignored the Giants and Golden Seals aspect because you don’t actually have the knowledge to properly comment.

        And now your argument is that because a player was accused and investigated multiple times for sexual assault, the Niners cut him because he’s black.

        No, just no.

      • Now this has gone off the rails.

      • What about when the Warriors moved from SF to Oakland? Was that a racist move too?

    • So what if the A’s move from East Oakland to the more affluent area around JLS are they still being racist? Won’t that have just as big of an impact on the poor businesses on Hegenberger?

      • Shhhhh. Reason and logic don’t apply here. [/sarcasm]

      • It would have an impact on the immediate area but Oakland would be much better off with greater revenues form 81 home games in the Jack London Area.

        We can then concentrate on keeping the Raiders and maybe Warriors in a new development in East Oakland at the Coliseum. It would be a net increase to Oakland’s general fund which then could be used to help the neighborhoods in East Oakland.

        No, it wouldn’t be economic racism and disinvestment in Oakland since it would improve Oakland economy as a whole.

      • You completely and totally contradicted yourself. Congrats on eroding what very little credibility you had left, Nav.

  30. You don’t think the restaurants and hotels near Oakland International will be effected if the A’s, Raiders, and Warriors leave?

    What about all the shows and concerts the Warriors will be taking with them to San Francisco? What about the marketability nationally for Oakland to lure businesses, hotel patrons, visitors, etc.? It would have a huge effect on the area and on Oakland’s over all economy.

    Turning our heads while excusing this type of unfair economic divestment from Oakland is not right.

    • I’m telling you to quantify your claim instead of making yet another wild ass guess that feels right to you. It won’t kill you to do a little background work for once.

      • It’s a hypothetical man. What would you like me to do? Come on Marine Layer show a little compassion for what will happen in Oakland should these franchises leave.

      • Look, if you’re gonna come in firing grenades about racism and such, don’t expect it to go unchecked. You want to have credibility? Earn it.

    • Answer the question. You are applying different standards to different organizations and you have made no effort to clarify your apparent hypocrisy on the issue.

  31. It’s not grenades. It’s speaking the truth. No one else will say it, but I will.

    • Your truth was also your opinion, at least you said so earlier in the thread. For it to be the truth you need to back it up. You have refused to do so, even asking me to give you a break. You’re a demagogue. I will not give you a break. Substantiate your claims or cease this line of argument.

    • George: “I told her the truth.”
      Jerry: “As you see it?”
      George: “Yes, as I see it.”

      Seinfeld has already summarized your existence on this site.

  32. No, the Warriors moved from Daly City to “Golden State.” The Warriors never moved to “Oakland.”

    I challenge anyone to go inside Oracle Arena and find the name “Oakland” anywhere on the court, basket supports, scorer table. etc. It’s no where to be found in the building.

    The “Golden State” Warriors have cleansed the name “Oakland” from Oakland’s own building. Another example of anti-Oakland economic racism

    • You can’t cleanse a team of the Oakland name when it never had it to begin with.

      • Cleansed “Oakland” from and arena in Oakland.

      • The Arena used to have “Oakland” emblazoned along the baselines of the basketball floor. Then they renovated the arena. Then they sold the naming rights. Chris Cohan said he’d consider renaming the team “Oakland” if he got a break on the lease. He didn’t get the break. The rest is history.

    • And btw, you’re contradicting yourself again. First you claimed that the Warriors heading to SF is racist. Now you’re claiming that the Warriors existing as they do and where they do now is racist. It can’t be both.

  33. It is both, in certain ways. Not respecting and acknowledging your home city because you think it would stigmatize you product, is a very racist thing coming from the “Golden State” Warriors. Now, once they go to San Francisco they’ll all of a sudden be able to acknowledge THAT city.

  34. Damn! Saw 103 comments and thought for sure there was some breaking news or something! Alas, it’s nothing but Elmano/Nav rants and responses (cue face palm). Until the next thread…

Comments are closed.