City and County set new targets for Coliseum City ENA

Update 3/19 1:20 PM – Oakland’s City Council has scheduled a special meeting for Friday, March 20 at 11:30 AM to vote on a resolution supporting the ENA. You can find the agenda at the meeting link. In addition to the deadlines set forth in yesterday’s news, there’s also an option to extend the agreement for up to six months if some of the deliverables aren’t met or other holdups. There’s also this:


Nothing about the “alternative proposals” shows up in the resolution, however. Once the City and County both approve the ENA including this facet, the A’s (and Raiders for that matter) could start sending in their own concepts. I expect one at some point from the A’s, but as noted previously, they are under no deadlines to deliver anything as New City and the Raiders are.

Original post:

Yes, we wrote two months ago about how the City of Oakland and Alameda County were coming together to work on Coliseum City. The signs were that both parties were finally on the same page.

Well, we’re hearing the same thing again, though this time it might actually be for real. After some back and forth between the County and Floyd Kephart of New City, the County’s Board of Supervisors are looking to vote on the ENA at the end of this week. Or early next week. Or something. The SF Business Times’ Ron Leuty has the details.

Besides the ever plodding deal machinations, Leuty also picked up the new terms of the ENA. June 21 marks a midterm deadline for New City to provide certain deliverables. The “final” deadline is August 21, with even more deliverables. All told it’s 23 separate items, all important, few minor.

June 21st’s set is all about creating the framework of the deal. It should answer basic questions like How many teams will be involved? and How long will it take to develop?

  • An initial financing plan for a new stadium for the Raiders, including ancillary development and land and infrastructure to support a potential new stadium for the Oakland Athletics. It will include projected sources and types of funding as well as the estimated equity stake from New City, its partners and affiliates.
  • Terms and conditions required to win a commitment from the Raiders, A’s or the Golden State Warriors to Coliseum City. This will include an update on the status of negotiations between New City and each team.
  • Initial site plans for new Raiders and/or A’s stadiums.
  • Financial and market feasibility analyses for various elements of the development other than sports facilities.
  • A development schedule for the sports facilities and ancillary development, including the timing of entitlements for all phases of the project.
  • An estimate of infrastructure cost and a funding plan for the infrastructure, including a list of potential regional, state and federal grant sources.
  • Plans for tax financing districts for infrastructure.
  • A preliminary plan for subdividing parcels, if needed.
  • Proposals for addressing the existing Coliseum debt.
  • Proposed timetables for disposing of land for various parts of the project.
  • An outline contracting plan.
  • An outline community benefits plan for the project.

August 21 is about buttoning up the deal and figuring out all of the little details defined in June.

  • A detailed description of the plan for project development.
  • Refined terms and conditions required to win a commitment from the Raiders and/or A’s and a project schedule for obtaining a commitment.
  • A refined financing plan for Raiders and/or A’s stadiums, including identification of all sources of financing.
  • A refined description of the financing structure for ancillary development and the proposed developers for each element of those pieces of the development.
  • A clearer schedule for development of the stadiums and the ancillary development, including the timing of entitlements.
  • A better estimate of infrastructure cost and a funding plan for the infrastructure.
  • A refined proposal for establishing tax financing districts for financing infrastructure.
  • A clearer plan for subdividing parcels.
  • A refined proposal addressing existing Coliseum debt.
  • Proposed terms for the lease disposition and development agreement and financing for various elements of the project.
  • A refined contracting plan and community benefits plan.

By late April we should expect that the EIR will be certified and the Specific Plan approved, which are their own framework in that it defines zoning. With that zoning component there are no entitlements on which developers can build at the Coliseum.

To date many of the deadlines put forth by the City have been about timing in concert with some important date for the Raiders and the NFL. Previously the ENA was supposed to be completed before the 2014 season over, then before the franchise relocation window opened, then 90 days from that (April). Now the ENA deadline is being pushed to just before the 2015 NFL regular season starts. That itself is arbitrary, and allows for yet another 3-5 months of slack before the Raiders have to make a decision on LA or another possible move. With that in mind, I fully expect Coliseum City to slip yet again past August. The list of deliverables above is daunting. The DDA alone can take months to put together. While everyone’s operating from the notion that once a team signs on everything else will fall into place, there’s little reason to believe that negotiations will be that tidy. This project has a growing number of stakeholders, including housing and jobs activists who will make their stamp on a community benefits agreement. The financing for a project of this size is incredibly complex. And the City and County have to be on their toes to ensure that they don’t get taken by the private stakeholders in the project: New City, developers, and the team(s). Without clear terms done in thoughtful, deliberate manner, you get Mt. Davis.

I haven’t mentioned the A’s or Lew Wolff yet. Wolff has made his position clear in that he has no interest in Coliseum City. The difference for him is that he and the A’s have no deadlines, arbitrary or otherwise. What happened to the idea of allowing competing bids? That appears to have disappeared into the ether. For now.

79 thoughts on “City and County set new targets for Coliseum City ENA

  1. re:Terms and conditions required to win a commitment from the Raiders, A’s or the Golden State Warriors to Coliseum City.

    A’s: No interest in Coliseum City
    Warriors: Acquired property in Frisco, just released new sketches of their planned Frisco arena…Oakland remains in denial.

  2. Get it done Floyd and Mark!

  3. All this should have been done several years ago. I’m skeptical that all Oakland and Alameda County may be doing is going through the motions as a last minute attempt to save face before all three of its teams pick up a leave. I”m also questioning whether Mark Davis or Lew Wolff could even be on the same page to what’s being proposed under this plan. Will know soon enough.

  4. Hopefully we will be getting some solid information concerning the Raiders efforts with New City, between June/August (this year), assuming there are REAL efforts being made.
    In the meantime Wolff may continue to employ his wait Davis out strategy (Oakland must chose) , in hopes that Davis can’t get things done in Oakland and will be forced to leave for LA, thereby opening up the coliseum land for his team only, as the Raiders and Warriors will be gone, or on their way to being gone. That of course won’t secure the A’s in Oakland, as Wolff will continue to wait out his law suit against MLB; oh I’m sorry “San Jose vs MLB” in hopes that he won’t have to settle for his plan B.

    • @Lakeshore/Neil, You are absolutely right that Lew Wolff will not consider any Coliseum site plan until the SCOTUS makes a decision on whether they will take the San Jose lawsuit against MLB.

    • Re: “In the meantime Wolff may continue to employ his wait Davis out strategy”

      This is the city’s strategy not Wolff’s.

      Wolff doesn’t have a choice. He’s made it clear that for the A’s to stay in Oakland they need control of the Coliseum site. The city/county have blocked his ability to even submit a proposal. He’s not actively/strategically waiting Davis out. The city and county are forcing him to wait Davis out.

      • @ Slacker
        I respectfully disagree, and no
        “The city/county have blocked his ability to even submit a proposal”
        , they have not, that’s absolutely untrue. But I’m party sure that’s what Wolff would want people to believe.

      • @ Slacker
        Check out the sidebar for recent tweets, you will find one from ML, about the coliseum city project that makes it quite clear, Wolff is free to submit whatever proposal he would like.
        My guess is he will submit one, if (when) he fills the Raiders city/county are close to an agreement. That way it will continue to look as though Oakland “chose” the Raiders and not the A’s. Wait out Davis in full effect.

      • @Slacker

        The ENA is nonbinding, and includes language that would allow Wolff to submit a proposal, hell as ridicules as it may seem even the Warriors could submit a proposal. (Not that they would)

  5. So Oakland has made it’s choice and it’s choice is the Raiders.

    If MLB truly wanted to resolve the stadium situation quickly, this would be the time to press the issue. They could easily come out and say that this proposal is unacceptable to the A’s/MLB and unless the A’s are allowed to submit their own bid, they will be forced to look into other markets in the Bay Area.

    • @slacker- makes me wonder if there isn’t some concern about this with Lacob saying he wants to buy the A’s again- given that boxer is working closely with him to move the W’s to SF while trying to keep the A’s in oakland that may be a well timed PR stunt to say we have a buyer who is willing to keep the team in Oakland- maybe LW/Fisher should swap the A’s for the W’s. Let Lacob then show his “commitment” to Oakland and let LW,one the W’s to SJ-

  6. MLB is going to look very unprofessional and dimwitted when one of its franchises has no place to play. The real live version of “The Great American Novel,” where a baseball team had to play all its games on the road. Wolff notified MLB years ago of the difficulties in getting anything done in Oakland and its “Keep trying” response could lead to an orphaned franchise, if the Raiders get the Coliseum site. Construction starts, A’s have to leave, no new ballpark in sight.

    • @ pjk- More so than they do today….? As all other oakland teams look for other options MLB says to its own– “you have to stay because we blew it back in 1992”- while one of the. Best markets in the country sits untapped by and large-

      • Correct. MLB locked itself out of one of the most lucrative markets in the country – Silicon Valley – just to get the new Giants owners to build a new ballpark, which ended up in Frisco. Now, MLB pretends it “serves” Silicon Valley with a franchise 45 miles away. The Giants know it would be in MLB’s best interest to have a franchise there but don’t care.

  7. What will Manfred and other owners do when the A’s become homeless?

    • That’s the big question. The premiere baseball league on the planet with a team playing in a temporary facility in some field in Hayward, somewhere, with fans sitting in aluminum bleachers and relieving themselves in urinals in trailers. That will be a showcase facility, won’t it? Barring a deal to play at ATT Park, which I hope doesn’t happen, perhaps franchise operations could be suspended pending construction of a new facility someplace? That place probably would not be in the Bay Area.

      • @pjk: I would like to see the A’s play in a temp stadium in the BA. We will see how other teams react when they have to play in such stadiums. It would be hilarious. Seriously I hope it happens.

      • Wolff has already discussed the A’s building a temporary ballpark, if needed (likely in San Jose also) ML has mentioned that temp ballparks aren’t too bad if done the right way.

  8. I don’t do Twitter but I keep reading these circular arguments that go nowhere. I figure I will just ask for input here.

    I thought the plan was that there would be 3 proposals to compare? One each from the Raiders and A’s and one from New City. I thought the idea was for each entity to submit what they believed was the best solution and then TPTB would discuss, negotiate, decide?

    What is LW’s holdup and why has Schaaf not asked for his plans? It looks like the Raiders don’t have a plan and are waiting on New City.

    So, I am curious, if Coli City is deemed dead in some circles, why LW wouldn’t submit a kick-ass proposal? He’s a developer, he knows what does and doesn’t work. He rejects CC so I infer that he at least believes it’s unworkable. Then why not say “Hey Libby, this CC thing is beyond ridiculous. Read my proposal and you will see a guaranteed winner. Sorry for your Raiders but this is how it has to be for us to remain. It’s up to you sweetie.”

    Then Kephart can slide in with his CC proposal, which MD looks as if he’ll ride those coat tails, and now there is a competing plan to compare to. If we assume all parties are being sincere, excuse me for a sec (hahahaha), sorry, then this thing should be in the works, right? Meaning “Give us your best plans. It’s there if you want it.”

    Which brings me to this: perhaps there are those who don’t want it. Just a thought.

    Unless and until there is more transparency in this soap opera, I personally have a very tough time with “Oakland chose the Raiders over the A’s.”

    Oakland can’t make a decision about anything without a series of meetings spread out over years, that’s obvious. In this case, though, you can’t pick something that you haven’t seen.

    • Isn’t there still an ENA in place preventing Wolff from submitting anything? I could be wrong about that. I’m betting what MLB would like to see is Oakland telling the A’s – “The Coliseum site is all yours. Don’t worry about the Raiders- they have a stadium nearby they can use. Here’s the property and here are the keys to do as you see fit” But we’re not seeing anything close to this happening. It’s still an attitude that the A’s must make the first move and “commit” to Oakland, regardless of what kind of obstacles are placed in their way via the Raiders, etc.

      • @pjk
        The ENA is nonbinding, and includes language that would allow Wolff to submit a proposal. Come on you have got to know that.

    • @Djhip
      Things that make you go hmmmm…

      • So what happens when Wolff does what we would expect and submits a proposal that requires the Raiders to leave? He gets hated even more than he already is. “Wolff is chasing our beloved Raiders out of town!” It will be easier for the A’s to avoid that kind of PR nightmare and have Oakland select the A’s and a ballpark over the Raiders and a redundant, second Bay Area NFL stadium. But we’re not seeing anything like that, are we? Oakland won’t even acknowledge that the Warriors are gone. Just look at the proposal in ML’s post that still refers to them.

      • @pjk
        Re: “So what happens when Wolff does what we would expect and submits a proposal”
        At the moment no one has submitted a proposal, not New City, not the Raiders, not the A’s. The city and county is in the process, of hopefully selecting an eventual proposal from someone, anyone. (If and when they are submitted)
        You said “Isn’t there still an ENA in place preventing Wolff from submitting anything?”
        I was referring to that, and the answer is no. Nothing is preventing Wolff (or anyone), from submitting a proposal. So no, Oakland hasn’t made a choice, they don’t have a proposal in front of them to make a choice. Oakland’s only choice is to choose whoever choses them, if anyone actually dose.
        Oakland should have made choices, back in the years they could have. They face the real possibility of losing three major sports franchises. To suggest any American city that’s in that position has much of a choice is probable giving that city a little too much credit, concerning the choice.

    • Didn’t Kephart say previously that the City and County haven’t yet agreed upon a process and criteria for accepting and vetting additional proposals? I think that’s the hang-up for the A’s (or the Raiders for that matter) to submit a proposal separate from CC. Until those entities do that, Lew has to wait.

  9. Lakeshore: MLB has done its part – it has told Wolff to re-consider Oakland and denied San Jose. Now, it would be nice for Oakland to choose the A’s, instead of clinging to this silly pipe dream that it can accommodate all 3 teams at the Coliseum complex via this no-public-funds development project (Coliseum City) that just can’t seem to get off the ground, even after one of the teams (the Raiders) and multiple developers have taken a look at it. Telling the A’s to build at the never-going-to-happen Howard Terminal site is another non-solution we’ve seen proposed by Oakland in an attempt to keep all the teams.

    • @pjk
      Re: MLB has done its part – it has told Wolff to re-consider Oakland and denied San Jose. Now, it would be nice for Oakland to choose the A’s,
      Can’t choose something, which may not want to be chosen.
      The other stuff, I’m pretty much with you.

  10. Oakland is the only choice Wolff has right now (in the Bay Area, anyway). Now, if Oakland chooses the Raiders, then maybe San Jose gets reopened. Oakland has the power to put San Jose out of the picture permanently by choosing the A’s as its sports tenant for the Coliseum property.If Oakland says here’s the Coliseum property, A’s, then San Jose’s hopes as an MLB host are forever done. Is Oakland doing that? Nope. It’s clinging to the fantasy of holding on to all 3 teams without spending a penny on facilities construction.

    • @pjk

      And if Wolff doesn’t chose, his only choice? That would be him hoping another choices (San Jose), opens up.

    • I think this choosing Raiders over A’s narrative is a misdirection. Realistically, Oakland can’t choose anything without seeing a serious proposal.

      If the Raiders gave a proposal but the A’s didn’t, what are Oakland’s choices? Does this mean Oakland chose the Raiders over the A’s? As of this moment, asking Oakland to blindly hand over the site to the A’s is comical. Now this would be choosing one over the other, only Oakland would be choosing words and promises rather than plans.

      Regarding puttin SJ out of the picture, I disagree. I have seen zero evidence that SJ dies if Oakland gives the A’s the entire property. Oh, I have seen carefully crafted sentences implying this would be the case.

      Give me a Manfred statement that says, “Oakland can put at an end to all of this by giving it all to the A’s now. The lawsuit will end and SJ will no longer be in the discussion.” Better yet, a joint MLB/LW statement to this effect. I am absolutely certain a great many people would urge Schaaf to do just that even with some fallout from a displacement of the Raiders.

      PS – IMO no serious person believes all 3 teams will stay. There is a faction that believes 2 can remain and another that believes only one.

  11. @pjk – just my 2 cents.

    I personally don’t expect any commitment from anyone, which is unrealistic. Rather, I would expect a sincere proposal showing how they would commit if their proposal is chosen.

    Regarding bad PR and chasing Raiders out of town, I believe that should be irrelevant. Not for nothing, but the PR can’t really get much worse. No, I think it should be A’s proposal, Raiders proposal (?), and Kephart. That would be an RFP. No matter the circumstances of who stays or goes in each proposal, it would be publicly presented as it is what it is. At that point serious discussions, negotiations, and the like, could lead to an end to the misery.

    Regarding MLB wanting Oakland to give the keys of the entire site to LW sight-unseen, without a proposal, is unreasonable. Why? Not only would that put the Raiders out, it would leave Oakland vulnerable to pending circumstances. For instance, SJ is opened up via the courts. LW might just as well say he’s gone. Thus, Oakland has no teams.

    I think LW really has nothing to lose by submitting a winning proposal. The subsequent effect on the Raiders would be forgiven in due time. However, there is the risk for him that Oakland actually loves and chooses his proposal over the others. If there is a binding agreement for him to redevelop the entire site and build a stadium, he risks doing this too soon, before the SC decision, which could potentially give him SJ.

    Not saying it’s an easy decision for him, but it seems to be the quickest. That is, to submit a proposal that Oakland might actually choose. Unless, he believes the SC will hear the case relatively soon, I see know reason why a proposal is not submitted.

    • LW has a 10 year lease- he has no pressing need to deliver any proposal just because Oakland/Raiders are under the gun. Oakland has had 20 years and counting ting to figure this out and has never had a sense of urgency. LW can wait patiently to see how Oakland manages the raiders- learn along the way as to what currencies are being proposed and in the event it doesn’t work out and the Raiders leave then he has more knowledge and more leverage for any future negotiations with Oakland. If Oakland stiles a deal with the Raiders than LW will live up to the terms of his lease and vacate the Coli with 1 year notice- these guys didn’t become billionaires by making emotional decisions-

      • Yes, Wolff is not under pressure like the Raiders are. I’m not saying he shouldn’t use this strategy, I’m saying people should recognize that he may be using it.

      • As my kids say when we’re doing algebra….”Huh?”

        What does (your opinion BTW) this 20-year God-awful, non-urgent Oakland thing have to do with today? What is that statement contributing to a solution to this whole disaster?

        If your point is to keep bringing this up for some personal satisfaction, then so be it. You have every right to express yourself. Just know that this has been acknowledged ad nauseum. While I don’t believe Oakland was 100% at fault, I do agree that they were clearly, obviiusly the biggest contributors to this fiasco that we have now, by a huge margin.

        Also, the latest narrative seems to be “quit focusing on the whole ‘choosing’ thing.” Meaning Oakland choosing one over the other. That’s fine and all but I have read, just today alone, over a dozen posts with the “Oakland chose Raiders over A’s”, i.e., the previous narrative. Or the “choosing narrative” if you will.

        Is a certain segment of A’s fandom allowed that original narrative while another is barred?

  12. Isn’t this a knee jerk reaction by Oakland since there is an NFL owners meeting this weekend?

  13. Yikes guys. Lew Wolff will get his turn to show what he wants to do (when he talked about surface parking, Mayor Libby said she was aware of his position when approached for comment meaning… He’s already made it known what he wants to do in some fashion).

    This is a goos step forward. This is the process that anyone will have to follow to get something done. This is what all of them have been waiting for. A clear direction from both the City and County on the milestones a developer needs to meet in order to move the project forward.

    While I don’t want to see a complex like they have in Philadelphia, it’s possible that this could be what happens. It’s what Lew Wolff originally pitched in 2005.It’s possible it ends up one team only, an arena only with no team, two teams and a massive parking lot… chill on the predictions and “choices.” Thsi is actual progress.

    • @Jeffrey- agree with your points u til you said 2 stadiums with a sea of parking. Not sure how someone in this area would finance 1 stadium with surface parking requirements much less 2 stadiums. Also, not so sure LW is going to submit anything until he has a clear line of sight as to what is being offered for the Raiders. With a 10 year lease he doesn’t have the sense of urgency that the Raiders have.

      • I’m not sure how they finance it either. You can put me in the camp that believes the eventual outcome is one team at the site. But there are still two teams working on plans for the site and maybe after all the dust settles, Oakland and AlCo have a legit counter proposal for all involved that keeps them there.

        It’s all still possible until it isn’t is all I am saying.

    • Sorry, I agree with Jeffrey.

  14. “oakland/alco has to choose a team”

    “davis has to choose oakland, LA, SA, Levi’s, StL, London…”

    “lew has to choose a plan and submit it”

    The reality is that nothing will get done until all the parties sit down and figure it out together. Therefore, nothing will get done because obviously nobody is willing to do that…

    Oakland has been kicking this can down the road for decades. No reason to think this plan will go any further than the others.

    Lew chose Fremont and got litigated out of it. Lew chose San Jose and the Giants are being a bunch of crybabies because one of the top three richest metro areas in the nation isn’t enough for them – they want TWO of the top three. So that’s a no-go (for now.) Pretty clear that Lew has made his choice… and IT ISN’T OAKLAND. (we all say Lew’s choice but everyone seems to conveniently forget he’s just the mouthpiece of the group that made those choices.) Oh wait… I almost forgot… the A’s DID submit an Oakland plan some years back… that was rejected.

    Davis is just as wishy-washy as oakland/alco. He’s obviously way out of his league in this situation and is just waiting for somebody to make the decision easy for him or for the NFL to step in and say “you are playing in XYZ in 2018 now go make it happen… or else.” It actually think it will come to the latter.

    In my opinion, the only ones that look like they have a solid plan that they are sticking to long-term are the Warriors and the A’s.

    The Warriors knew this was going nowhere, saw an attractive chunk of land for sale and made their choice. We will look back ten years from now and all agree they look like geniuses.

    The A’s are following the old proverb “give a fool enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.” They will eventually win San Jose and they are willing to wait for it even if it means they have to wait out the SCOTUS and failing that, yes even if they also have to wait out their new 10-year lease. When they are rolling in the $$$ and wearing a ring or two or three, we will all think they look like geniuses too.

  15. @DTP

    Ooooooooo…Kay. The A’s are now playing a game to let Oakland “hang themselves.” i.e., they are f****ng around with everyone and that’s all. And you know this firsthand? Awesome! Keen! Um, witty! Bravo!

    “Let me get into a very tight corner and have an….. Um….., oh, …ecstasy. Now! Uh! Wow! Yes! Oakland sucks! They suck! 20 years! They don’t deserve anything!”

    Ok, now we’re slowing down, taking deep breaths. Aha…. Wait! Whoa, “pow”, “smash.” Easy Action… and Arab. Play it cool boy. Real cool. Boy, boy, crazy boy……

    Oakland kicked the can down the road for decades. Awesome contribution to this situation. Really. Seriously. Wow. The past is extremely relevant.

    The A’s will eventually win SJ. Thanks for enlightening me. Brilliant beyond all comprehension!

    Then f****ng do it now. Please!

    Seeya P***ks! Buuuuh…..Bye.

  16. @DTP

    Sorry for the vitriol and obvious sarcasm. It was uncalled for and was nothing personal.

    Just frustration on my part from continually reading about Oakland’s past failures. While I do acknowledge it, I just don’t see how this talking point is going to fix this fiasco.

    • @Djhip
      I’m totally with you on that.

    • Well, it’s called “opinion.” That opinion has been formed from following this for a LONG time and watching the same patterns of failure repeat themselves. Mark Twain said “the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” Now, based on that, you decide. I’m sorry if you don’t agree. This is MY opinion and I’m entitled to it. That’s YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it. At least I back mine up with fact-based reality.

      As for how this helps move things along… I am trying to get people to see that this pipe-dream is just that… a pipe-dream. I don’t blame Oakland for fighting tooth-and-nail to try and keep their teams. In fact, I commend them for it! They certainly are going down swinging. But facts is facts as they say. Time to move on people.

      Yes, I think the A’s are waiting it out, knowing Oakland does not have the capability and/or money to make anything happen. Never had it, never will.

      They are not keeping two teams and unless some extremely rich benefactor with several hundred million dollars just laying around under his or her mattress enters the picture to fill all the funding gaps or they are willing to give up 100% of their control, they won’t even keep one team. The likelihood of either one of those happening? My OPINION, pretty close to zero.

      I’m going to step on some toes here and I apologize in advance if I do, but my OPINION is and I’ve held it for a VERY long time… Oakland is not a major-league city. I don’t think a shiny new stadium will change that. Oh, it might fill up for a short while, then it will be back to the days of tarps and TV blackouts.

      And here is a FACT, not OPINION… I sincerely hope all of my predictions are wrong!

      Why? Because having the A’s play at a BART station is the only way I will go to any significant number of games.

  17. My prediction: Kephart, Davis/Raiders and OAK/AlCo get a stadium deal done for the Coli and Wolff/A’s begin planning for a 15-20K seat temporary stadium (ala the defunct Empire Field in Vancouver) at Warm Springs BART/Fremont.

    • @ Tony D.
      Its human nature, to predict (in part) things, in a manner which we would like to see happen. But, I hear you it sounds as plausible as anything else, in this ridicules situation.

    • I hope you aren’t staking anything on that, because it’s a terrible prediction.

      • @ SMG
        Man, if this situation has showed us anything, it’s probable that guessing (anything) what may happening, won’t make anyone rich.

      • Sorry: “what may be happening won’t make anyone rich.”

      • Fremont city council voted on Tuesday (3/17/2015) to give Lennar (large developer) the green light to move forward with 2,200 units of housing and 1.4 million square feet of commercial space adjacent to the Warm Springs BART station.

        Even without this project in the pipeline and news surrounding it, Tony’s prediction would still be horrible.

      • Come on Tony, I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

      • LS,
        Of course I knew that! ;). Phase 1 Lennar won’t be complete until 2017 and its mostly infrastructure and grading. Later phases, Lennar housing probably won’t be completed until the end of this decade, with the commercial component coming after. There will STILL be large swaths of open land at Lennar/Tesla/WS BART through the end of this decade, so still room for a temp if necessary.

        Yes, crazy prediction, but just as crazy as predicting Wolff will build a new A’s ballpark at the Coliseum…

      • @ Tony D.

        Right on brother, right on.

      • But not as crazy as predicting the A’s will move to SJ even after the lawsuit gambit has pretty much failed and MLB already rejected Lew’s plan for Diridon. Seems legit…

      • After all these years, Jeffrey is now anti-SJ…sigh. (a personal moment of silence……………still luv yah man!)

    • Why spend money on a temporary stadium when you have 14,000 capacity Raley Field only 70 miles away in West Sacramento?

  18. I guess the dog and pony show has ended for this week as @Mike2 pointed out above.

  19. @ Tony D. – Well, so does Phone Booth Park and some here have discussed the possibility of the A’s playing there especially if Oakland decides to only build a stadium for the Raiders. The A’s would of course pay rent which may, in the long run, be cheaper than building a temporary ballpark especially if the local government insists that the A’s also cover the cost of tearing down the temporary stadium. So, again, why spend money on a temporary ballpark when you already have two venues already in place as a temporary home while a new stadium is being built?

    • It’s all been discussed here already Matt (RM wrote about it last Spring). Have a great day. ..

    • @Matt: Please refer to the previous ML blog about the feasibility of a temporary ballpark. It explains how they can be done well, profitable and practical. Evidently Wolff agrees because the A’s have discussed building such a ballpark and never discussed leasing at phonebooth park . Even Manfred evidently is on board with the idea.

      • @ duffer
        I don’t recall Manfred saying anything, that would suggest he was remotely cool with a manufactured temporary ballpark. Perhaps I missed something, what quote or information are you drawing from to come to that conclusion? I’m not being sarcastic or anything I would really like to know.

  20. @Lakeshore/Neil: When the A’s and Oakland were negotiating the 10 year lease extension, Manfred commented that the A’s could move “anywhere they wanted to” if a lease agreement couldn’t be worked out (that implies anywhere, including SJ) Since the A’s were threatening to build a temporary stadium locally at the time, a temporary ballpark was on the table (and likely still is – if Oakland city officials opt to go with the Raiders plan instead of the A’s)

    • @ duffer
      I understand how the Manfred quote of “anywhere they want to” , could lead you to believe it was inclusive of San Jose. I just don’t get the manufactured temporary ballpark out of that, after all he did go on threaten Oakland with the A’s playing at AT&T, not a manufactured park at a Bay Area location outside of Oakland, but you’re guess is a good as mine.

      • That “anywhere they want to” probably means exactly that, including San Jose. Manfred likely would have specified that San Jose was off limits. The A’s were discussing building a temporary ballpark at that time, so that possibility would also be included. Also, Manfred – even recently -commented that the A’s have other local options besides Oakland. A temporary A’s ballpark, even in San Jose, is possible. And if Oakland chooses the Raiders plan at the CC site – probable.

      • @ duffer
        I definitely get where you coming from, hopefully that’s what Manfred meant. I could also see him saying those things trying to bluff Oakland into doing something, rather then San Jose being a real option (Giants TR), but who knows? You could be correct.

      • I don’t understand why all of you are trying to divine so much from something Manfred said while trying to get something out of Oakland 9 months ago. Nothing’s set in stone. The A’s and MLB have to make contingency plans for whatever happens in Oakland, which could mean a temporary facility if AT&T can’t work out logistically. That’s all it is.

  21. @ML – true, although the A’s were discussing building a temporary facility even before Manfred’s comment , it’s still likely an option for them. (You don’t need to know this though – since you blogged about the possibility of a new A’s temporary ballpark even before the A’s went public with the concept)

  22. It is my understanding under the lease extension with the Coliseum, the A’s would be able to remain at the Coliseum for two more seasons upon notification to vacate as a result of the Raiders getting a new Coliseum deal. Two seasons should be enough time for the A’s to build a temporary stadium, if need be. Also, two seasons should be enough time to work out logistical issues with the Giants to share AT&T Park, as well.

    • Exactly. The temporary stadium idea was pushed by Wolff because he didn’t have a lease to accommodate the A’s. Now that the 2+ year adjustment period is written into the new lease, the whole temporary thing is mostly moot.

      • The A’s don’t appear to be receptive about leasing with the Giants though. After Selig threatened that that the A’s would move to AT&T Park if Oakland wouldn’t ok the lease extension, Wolff quickly commented that that the A’s were exploring building a temporary stadium – and made no comments about Selig’s threat of the A’s moving to the phonebooth. The A’s have never made any comments about possibly moving into phonebooth park.

    • @IIpec

      Yeah, that’s pretty much how I see it.

  23. “The A’s have never made any comments about possibly moving into phonebooth park.”

    The idea is to leave open, but not publicly state the future possibility of the A’s becoming temporary tenants of the Giants at AT&T Park. This arrangement could be part of a negotiated compensation package to allow the A’s to move to San Jose. Until the A’s, Giants, and MLB get to that stage of circumstances, there is no reason for the A’s to publicly comment about possibly moving to AT&T Park.

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.