Some fans have been trying to chronicle the sordid history of A’s ballpark proposals. That’s why this blog exists! I wrote a post summarizing the journey just before Thanksgiving 2010 during a bout of post-recession malaise. Note the amount of outdated information despite the fact that the post less than seven years old. The amount of upheaval the Bay Area underwent since the recession was and remains simply remarkable.
Here’s the map of all explored ballpark sites. Refer back to the original post for explanations. Note: The A’s choice Peralta site is not on this map. It would be located below the blue “D” in Oakland.
newballpark.org 
Such a long, strange trip.
and unfortunately that long strange trip is going to continue for the next several years before they announce that its back to the Coli site- while some may feel that those of us who are skeptics of the Peralta site are just being negative getting approval for this site will prove to be as difficult as trying to convince the gints to give up T rights to SJ–I wish it would but its not gonna happen–
I think being skeptical is a reasonable response to this news. Especially considering the long journey it’s been. However the cast of characters is changed. Kaval instead of Wolff is a major upgrade. The organization seems to care more and that can’t be discounted.
“while some may feel that those of us who are skeptics of the Peralta site are just being negative”
Yeah, you pretty much nailed that one…
It’s nothing like getting territorial rights to SJ. It si like convincing the Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood Association on board with Diridon (which never happened).
@ Jeffrey With respect to Shasta Hanchett, do you mean with respect to San Jose Arena or the proposed A’s stadium?
Proposed A’s Stadium
Those jerkoffs raised a stink about the possible noise level from Avaya Stadium as well – even though that stadium was more than a mile from them and on the opposite side of both the SP mainline and the Nimitz Freeway.
Never give a NIMBY a chance to NIMBY – because if you give them that chance, they will make your life hell.
Amen!
@GoA’s The difference is, the Giant’s had contractual veto power so the A’s HAD to convince them to give up T rights. Peralta neighbors do not have a veto. It would be better if the A’s can convince them, but they don’t necessarily have to – they just have to convince enough Oakland pols that the political upside of approving the project outweighs the political downside.
Again, many stadium projects get built in spite of NIMBY opposition (including Levi’s Stadium and Chase Center).
guys- I used the analogy of T rights to reflect the level of difficulty–don’t take that as a direct comparison. the level of difficulty of this site–as has been cited by just about anyone who knows anything about it–is extremely high….and that’s before the city of Oakland gets into how they are going to pay for infrastructure upgrades (some estimate at over $200M) or what they plan to give to the A’s to “privately” fund this ballpark. A’s have indicated behind the scene that they want development rights for some of the Coli land and want to share in revenue streams from other developments on this land…and perhaps elsewhere in the city. None of this has even been discussed in the public arena and once it hits you will have serious backlash in Oakland. Not only do you have to convince folks to give up their neighborhood but you also have to convince the affordable housing advocates and others that it is ok to give away revenue streams from public property—
I agree with all of this. NIMBYs won’t stop the project if Oakland doesn’t let them.
Exactly Jeff.
The project won’t be stopped by NIMBY groups, unless it’s something the City of Oakland allows to happen.
It seems as if the Oakland political establishment needs to be in the situation of losing two teams (Raiders, Warriors), with the threat of a third (A’s), leaving for them to put any political will behind doing anything. And, even at that their support at least at the moment a bit mediocre.
Step the hell up Oakland (Alameda County), politicians…
Maybe Oakland’s leaders don’t feel the need to fully support the Peralta site as long as the Coliseum option is still available.
Maybe the leaders in Oakland don’t fill the need to fully support anything, regardless of where it is, that’s certainly how they have conducted themselves throughout this mess.
And, if they continue they will own the sad legacy of bring the only Amrican city to lose three teams in three different sports, and one team twice no less…
With Oakland unwilling to at least partially fund the new ballpark, and with both the Raiders and Warriors well on their way out of town, Oakland would not dare to have the Peralta site blocked for the new A’s ballpark. If Oakland was stupid enough to allow that scenario to happen, then MLB would likely either allow the A’s to move to San Jose, or even much worse allow the A’s to move altogether out of the Bay Area. In that case leaving Oakland without any major sports team.
The first phase of the Peralta plan only takes 9 to 12 months. We’ll know by next summer if this Peralta site is chosen or not.
if the A’s then pivot to the Coli site, it could break ground in 2019, either way were at Laney in 2023 or the Coli 2 years sooner.
If this time next year the A’s are starting environmental reviews, the Peralta site has cleared major hurdles.
What’s MLB doing about solving the Oakland mess? Manfred was very pro Oakland at one time, lately however, MLB hasn’t done much about it. Also, the current Oakland mayor has failed miserably negotiating with the Raiders and Wolff. If this process keeps stalling, Portland, San Antonio, or Montreal may be in the A’s future plans.
Announcing your next contestant in the NIMBY Parade: The Audobon Society!
http://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Golden-Gate-Audubon-Society-opposes-Oakland-A-s-12207726.php
The one thing that the A’s did really well in SJ was to get support across the board when the proposed site was made public. They had all their ducks in a row and had coordinated with the immediate neighborhood who supported the plan (Delmas), had unanimous support from the city council and mayor and had already worked with the transit agencies to ensure coordination with proposed HSR and BART. Surprised they didn’t achieve the same level of support before going public in Oakland—this site is going the way of Fremont with all of the push back. Gints must be loving it—another misstep by the A’s means they are getting closer to either choosing an inferior site- the Coli, or using it as their reason to bail on Oakland—disappointing–
@ML: Drive-by mention in M&R about the Coliseum authority negotiating a new lease with the Raiders (presumably for 2019). If true, this would be a significant reversal. Any insight? http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Coliseum-exec-is-richly-rewarded-to-help-say-12212767.php
@ bartleby
Significant reversal of what exactly?
The Raiders staying one more year means absolutely nothing. It’s not going to effect the A’s at the Peralta site, is it?
It’s also not going to effect the A’s at the coliseum site weather its future development, or in the event they need to use it as a fall back plan to build their ballpark on, is it?
It’s certainly not going to effect the Raiders plans at all. The only thing it effects is the Raiders having to pay one more year of rent, and whatever proceeds and taxes come from 10 more home games in Oakland (not counting potential playoff games), provided they even get the full complement of 10 since for a few years the NFL has made sure they have not even gotten that.
So yeah, again, again meaningless. Or almost meaningless…
Pretty much. I think the JPA reacted quickly in the spring because, well wouldn’t you feel spurned? Besides that they probably thought that the A’s would pick the Coli in the end and that they’d need to act on it quickly because of the revenue sharing fade. Now that they picked Peralta everyone can play a slightly longer game.
@LSN
“Significant reversal of what exactly?”
Significant reversal of earlier pronouncements from the pols that they would not allow the Raiders to extend their lease to 2019.
“The Raiders staying one more year means absolutely nothing”
Maybe not to the A’s. Maybe not to you. But to many of us who have been long term Raider fans, it would mean a lot.
I have been a Raider fan since the late ’70s, was one of the original PSL holders in 1995, and am currently enjoying my 18th year as a season ticket holder. I do not intend to follow the Raiders to Vegas, but I do intend to savor every moment (and attend every possible game) as long as they remain in the Bay Area,
So, the possibility of one more year in Oakland (maybe two if there are construction delays)? After years of miserable football, one or two years while the team is at their peak? One or two more shots at bringing a titled back to the Bay Area? One of two more years before something unique and special in professional sports is irrevocably destroyed?
Yeah, that would mean a lot to me. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
@ bartleby
Pump the brakes.
Its means almost nothing in the big picture. I’m glad it means something to you, and I’m sure to others as well, but as far as building new sports facilities, or the Raiders staying, I mean actually staying it means nothing.
I have also been a Raider fan since the 70’s, and may have been a bigger Raider fan then an A’s fan at times, but them staying one more year means nothing to me as a fan, absolutely nothing. I grew up in Oakland, my family has leaved there for, now 9 generations, and the Raiders were a big part of my childhood.
And, to the extent that it may mean more to some as fans, that’s great, but in the big picture nothing.
Like ML mentioned the politicians were mad at the time, so what? Why would they turn down one more year of rent, proceeds, and taxes, because they are mad? What’s the alternative?
Oh, that right nothing…
told you guys so. Stand for Oakland !!!!!!!
@ LSN
“Its means almost nothing in the big picture.”
That’s your subjective opinion. If a close relative of yours were dying of a terminal disease and the doctors said they had a year or two longer than expected, would you say that’s meaningless because they’re just going to die anyway?
“I’m glad it means something to you, and I’m sure to others as well, but as far as building new sports facilities, or the Raiders staying, I mean actually staying it means nothing.”
I never said or even remotely implied this would make a difference where the A’s or Raiders play for the long term. I just said this was a significant reversal from the Oakland pols previous position and if it actually happened it would mean something to me.
“I have also been a Raider fan since the 70’s, and may have been a bigger Raider fan then an A’s fan at times, but them staying one more year means nothing to me as a fan, absolutely nothing. I grew up in Oakland, my family has leaved there for, now 9 generations, and the Raiders were a big part of my childhood. And, to the extent that it may mean more to some as fans, that’s great, but in the big picture nothing.”
Ok, good for you. Each of us grieves in their own way.
I could get all pissy about the move and say I’m boycotting the Raiders from now on, but who would that hurt? Not Mark Davis, he could care less. I’d only deprive myself of something that’s been a big part of my life up to this point and that I could continue to enjoy for a few more years.
Instead, I choose to take a zen view and live in the moment. The fact the Raiders are leaving actually makes me savor each game that much more, because I know it’s an era that’s coming to an end.
Also, I suffered through the lean years. I’ll be fucked if I’m giving up right when they’re competitive again.
“Like ML mentioned the politicians were mad at the time, so what? Why would they turn down one more year of rent, proceeds, and taxes, because they are mad? What’s the alternative? Oh, that right nothing…”
Oakland loses money on the games, even after the recent rent hike. Their alternative is to stand firm and tell the Raiders to go elsewhere. Certainly, they could justify doing so from an economic perspective.
@ bartleby
You are taking this way to personal.
You- “I never said or even remotely implied this would make a difference where the A’s or Raiders play for the long term.”
Me- Of course you didn’t, but future sports venues, and where team’s decide to play is pretty much what the blog is about, so?
You- “I just said this was a significant reversal from the Oakland pols previous position and if it actually happened it would mean something to me.”
Me- I don’t really think it is, like I said they were mad, they were going to get over it as long as the A’s were not going to need the property right away, and it’s really not that suppressing.
You- “Ok, good for you. Each of us grieves in their own way”
Me- Not disrespecting your grieving process, just pointing out you’re not the only Raider fan.
You- “I could get all pissy about the move and say I’m boycotting the Raiders from now on”
Me- Don’t assume to know how I fill, and didn’t you say “Each of us grieves in their own way”
You-“Instead, I choose to take a zen view and live in the moment.”
Me- live how you want, but don’t assume how others are living.
You-“Oakland loses money on the games”
Me- They might lose more if they didn’t have them.
Your entitled to your opinion, please let others have theirs…
@LSN
“…future sports venues, and where team’s decide to play is pretty much what the blog is about, so?”
Yes, and my comment concerned where the Raiders might play for the next several years, which is squarely in the wheelhouse.
“I don’t really think it is [a significant reversal], like I said they were mad, they were going to get over it as long as the A’s were not going to need the property right away, and it’s really not that suppressing.”
Good for you and your amazing crystal ball. Apparently you foresaw the five year march to Peralta as well. The pols said they wouldn’t renew, and I wasn’t taking for granted they’d change their minds. Especially when the economic benefit to the city is questionable.
“Not disrespecting your grieving process,”
Um, you kind of are a little bit.
“just pointing out you’re not the only Raider fan.”
And where did I suggest that I am? I just said another year or two would be meaningful to me and that I didn’t think I was alone in that. That’s far from saying everyone feels as I do (or that they should).
“Don’t assume to know how I fill, and didn’t you say “Each of us grieves in their own way””
Where did I write anything presuming to guess how you feel? I just pointed out for long term Raider fans there’s only a few possible ways to react to the move: (a) they’re dead to me; (b) I’m going to live in the moment for as long as they’re in Oakland then figure out something else to do with my time; or (c) I’m all in on Vegas. I chose (b). You may find it hard to believe, but I really wasn’t thinking about you when I posted.
“live how you want, but don’t assume how others are living”
I neither assume (nor frankly care) how others are living. Do what you want. You don’t want to go to the games? Don’t go.
“They might lose more if they didn’t have them.”
Based on what? All reports to date are that the city loses money on the games. Possibly they can negotiate better terms on a renewal, but frankly I think they’ll be lucky to break even.
“Your entitled to your opinion, please let others have theirs…”
A short recap of how this debate went:
Me: The Raiders might stick around for another year or two. Awesome!
You: That’s totally meaningless.
A little self-awareness might be in order here….
@ bartleby
It’s, cool our conversations usaly end like this.
You win…or atlest I will allow you to believe so because something tells me that’s important to you. (Soory broke my own rule of assuming)
Now let’s see if you can keep from responding? I asuritly will not if you do…
@ LSN To recap: I expressed an opinion, you shat all over that opinion, then took offense at my supposed lack of respect for your opinion (which you hadn’t expressed and I hadn’t given any thought to let alone commented on), and now close with a condescending comment which I suppose is meant to persuade me to let you have the last word. Yeah, that seems about how many of our discussions go.
Enough already.
Peralta is a bad idea. You don’t uproot a college and endanger the 200M investment made by Oakland residents to preserve Lake Merritt and it’s wildlife.
Oakland literally spent 200M to save birds, fish, and create a channel back into the Bay. But will not spend a dime on the A’s or Raiders. What does this tell you?
HOK did a study on Laney College years ago and nothing came of it. Here are the issues I can see:
1. Lake Merritt is the nation’s first wildlife sanctuary, the moment EPA gets involved it is going to be one filibuster after another in court. The A’s cannot guarantee that their fans will be all be clean. Every team has dumbass fans who litter and do not care cause they are drunk or just dumb.
2. The 250M it will cost Oakland for infrastructure improvements is blasphemy. They are better off subsidizing the A’s 150M or so to stay at the Coliseum and have them pay it back through lease payments. This actually did work with the Warriors, not so much with the Raiders.
3. They need more space than just the athletic fields. People will be forced to park in neighborhoods that are already packed with cars on the streets because it is low income as is. They need the Peralta offices and that entire parking lot for Laney on game days. Poor students will not be able to get to class at night.
4. All the places to eat in the area are mainly Asian-centric, not baseball centric places to pre-game. Meaning people will drink on the BART and in the parking lots thus creating more of a mess.
5. There is a elementary school and HS next door. Will the A’s play day games and when the game people will be flooded everywhere. Granted during summer not a issue but during the school year? Good lord it will be a mess for parents to get their kids.
6. No way an EIR passes in this location. The A’s will have to make massive investments to make it work. This is a very tight location and they are trying to squeeze a peg in a round hole.
I personally believe this is an effort by the A’s to show they did not want to stay at Coliseum to prove to everyone they are not the reason the Raiders left. They will pivot back to that location soon enough.
I do not see this going for more than 1 year before Kaval and Co. put their hands in the air and give up.
One last thing.
In the 2001 HOK report Laney College was ranked the 2nd highest in cost to Oak to 9th and least feasible of all the sites based on 5 different categories.
Wow…..in that study the A’s would build on the athletic field site, move the fields to where the offices are now, build 2 big garages and move the offices to the corner of the lot next to the garages.
SMH!
Why in the world would anyone advocate staying at the coli when there could be a downtown urban ballpark like almost every other team? So short sited, lack of vision, to say the least. Yeah, Candlestick was a jewel, why would the Giants ever want to leave!