Things are looking grim at the moment in Oakland. So far, Nevada and Clark County haven’t fumbled the bag, even as John FIsher’s lieutenants looked shaky at times in selling the Vegas ballpark concept. After much deliberation and horse trading, a $1.5 Billion ballpark concept was approved for the southeast corner of the Tropicana property, covering 9 of the 35 acres there. Total public outlay will be $380 million, including $120 million of bonds.
Recently, East Bay politicians and fans settled on a talking point: If Fisher only needed 9 acres and wanted to build only a ballpark, he could’ve done that much more cheaply and quickly at Howard Terminal. If you don’t think about it, it sort of makes sense. But there are obvious problems with the argument.
Oakland loves to claim that they’re putting up $380-440 million towards Howard Terminal. The problem with the argument is that the money, even if they get all of it, can only go towards off-site infrastructure. As we all know, if the area around Howard Terminal is to be commercialized it’s badly in need of redevelopment: sidewalks and signage, rail safety, etc. That’s a completely different commitment than what Nevada/Clark County are providing for the A’s, which is $380 million for the ballpark. Oakland’s not offering that. They’re waiting and hoping for state grants to come in to cover the off-site infrastructure only. I’m not sure how so many got confused about this. Vegas is offering at most $25 million towards off-site infrastructure, because the South Strip area needs it far less than the Oakland waterfront. If you think about it even a little, Oakland’s claims evaporate.
Back in Oakland, there is no pledge of a single dime to build the ballpark. Politically, that’s a smart and consistent stance by recent Oakland mayors after the Mount Davis debacle and the messiness of the Warriors’ departure. Rob Manfred and Major League Baseball have a different interpretation: they think Oakland doesn’t value having the A’s enough to keep the team in town. The whole idea of the $12 Billion mega project was to have all the other development defray the cost of the building the ballpark. If that goes away, what comes in to replace it? Look, I sympathize with everyone in the East Bay who doesn’t want to chance yet another nine-figure stadium subsidy. But the chief pathway to negotiate that, ancillary development, may have dried up in the last year thanks to inflation and new market realities. If that is the case, then what is Oakland offering? Free or no-cost land? Not exactly, even an 8-acre ballpark site won’t escape some amount of taxation, whether we’re talking about property taxes, a land lease, or other taxes. In Vegas, the land lease is basically free and all taxes and payments go to the ballpark district, which will be operated by the same Stadium Authority that operates Allegiant Stadium. It’s a classic version of a PILOT, or payments-in-lieu-of-taxes. PILOTs redirect all collected taxes towards payment of the bonds that were used to build the project. You can read about it at Wikipedia or at Field of Schemes, where Neil de Mause wrote extensively about the subject.
I’m against public funding of stadia in general. However, communities have to realize that in order to compete for a scarce resource like a major professional sports team, they won’t be able to get around making a sizable investment. Sometimes that’s taxes, sometimes it’s land. Either way it’s money. Politicians and media can spin it all they like, couching it in terms of neighborhood investment. The off-site stuff is not the same thing as the ballpark, not even close. If Oakland’s going to show their passion more than some protests and cutting remarks, they need to be ready to show their hand. And if they aren’t willing to do so, what are we really talking about here? Scoring political points while delaying the inevitable? Remember how Oakland latched onto that lawsuit against the Raiders and the NFL, the one that went for naught after 4 years? They’re using the same playbook with the “Moneyball Act” and the threat against the antitrust exemption. If fans and media are rightfully angry with A’s ownership for yanking them around, it’s also well past time to levy the same charges against the City of Oakland. Constantly throwing Hail Mary passes isn’t a strategy unless Al Davis or Don Coryell are calling your plays. Now it’s Sheng Thao, Libby Schaaf, Jean Quan, and now, Barbara Lee. Do you trust them to make the right moves to keep the A’s in town?
If fans want to push for some sort of tax to pay for a new ballpark at HT or anywhere else in Oakland, they’re running out of time to do so. Polls last year showed that it wasn’t the most pressing item for Oakland residents. It’s up to Oakland to be honest with itself about what it’s willing to do to keep the A’s. It’s easy for me to be fine with whatever direction they take since I don’t live there. This is the “adult conversation” I’ve written about in the past. It’s a talk that, frustratingly, Oakland still refuses to have. Oakland saw Vegas steal the Raiders out from under them in 2016. It’s seeing the A’s relocate at breakneck speed in 2023. If taxes are a non-starter, and if the East Bay market has difficulty supporting the higher prices associated with new venues, Oakland needs to show what it is capable of. Otherwise, this is all just talk. At least Oakland can feel comfort in knowing that there are no more major franchises for Vegas to steal.
newballpark.org 
Excellent summation! Great job ML. As I’ve said from the beginning, I feel bad for the fans. I don’t feel bad for the city of Oakland. My issue with MLB and the A’s is in not figuring out how to get around the territorial rights in San Jose. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I conclude that MLB never had any interest in getting around it. They’ve wanted the bay area to become a one team market so by moving the A’s, you’re killing 2 birds with one stone. You get Las Vegas in the game and you create a one team market for the Giants
Agree Maxwell- Manfred and giants have been in orchestrating this from beginning. People pointing at Fisher miss the fact that SJ was ready to go including naming rights already sold for “Cisco Field”. The irony in it all was John Shea of SF Chronicle recently publishing an article about minutes from meetings capturing granting Santa Clara County was indeed conditional on giants moving to SJ. People like Andy Dolich who is calling out Fisher for the money he will make by finally giving into a move fail to call out the giants and how much their team value increased by the A’s relocating. Lots of charlatans in this fiasco but John Fisher was happy to keep the A’s in the Bay Area if not for Manfred and Baer keeping them out of SJ.
Part of the problem was I think when Fisher bought the team and especially Lew Wolff conceded the rights to the territory. Hard to relitigate something that you already signed away. The Giants ownership would always argue that part of their valuation when they paid for the team was based on having exclusivity to the South Bay. If Bud Selig wasn’t such a little coward he would have forced the Giants to concede the rights to the South Bay for a reasonable fee, but Selig and Manfred were both too weak to make the correct and divisive decision.
This is all fruit of the poisoned tree, by which I mean the anti-trust exemption. It’s a rigged business, and we’re best out of it. John Fisher has absolutely cured me of giving a shit about baseball.
The other three sports leagues do fine blackmailing communities without the benefit of the antitrust exemption. Buffalo comes to mind.
“If you think about it even a little,” isn’t the total private cost the same for HT and Vegas? The NV funding is basically paying for the cost of the roof.
But I guess getting permanent revenue sharing is a pretty sweet deal for a cheapskate like Fisher.
It might be, but what is the public investment in Oakland? That’s what MLB cares about. It’s why this was always pitched as a “public-private partnership.” No free stadiums.
So are you saying they just need to put “something” down to show they are serious? In your opinion is the crux of the matter the fact that they (Oakland) THEMSELVES are not putting anything down?
Manfred and Fisher will decide how serious any proposal is. If there is a last chance, it is over the next six months. Best foot forward.
ML, you speak as if Oakland even still has a fighting chance of keeping the A’s.
Isn’t that already pretty much out of the cards at this point? It feels as if the A’s have all but left Oakland already?
I’m going off the Giants being approved to move to St. Pete 30 years ago and being pulled back by a coalition of moneyed interests in SF, including Don Fisher, John’s dad. You’re right though, lightning doesn’t usually strike twice in the same spot.
Ah, I see. The unfortunate thing is that Oakland just does not seem to have the “monied interest” factor for something like that to happen. Even despite the tech exodus, there are still A LOT of wealthy people/groups/companies that could step in, but the local sentiment in the Bay Area has always been anti-Oakland, so I doubt we’d see any such effort to keep the A’s here as we saw with the Giants back in the day.
Unless Clorox or Dreyer’s Ice Cream step in (they won’t), I don’t see where the big money would come from.
Or unless the Peralta Community College District decides they want to finally play ball after 6 years (which at best would be them offering to sell the land the A’s wanted….something colleges are actually doing to help their bottom lines due to decreased enrollments nationwide). But that’s a long shot and a pipe dream.
I agree with the Giant’s stance on team valuation being based on having south bay rights. Plus you have to keep in mind that the same Giant ownership under Bob Lurie, that were granted access to the South Bay when Haas owned the A’s, is a different ownership group that exists now so when people call the Giants back stabbers and hypocrites, I’m not fully on board with it.
Here’s where I have a problem with the Giants and MLB as well as the A’s. If Giants have valuation concerns then shouldn’t MLB, the Giants and even the A’s assess the value of the team with south bay rights as opposed to if they didn’t then move from there? Meaning for example, if the Giants are valued at $3.5 billion now but would only be valued at say, $2.75 billion with the A’s in San Jose. At that point, wouldn’t it make sense for the A’s to fork over $750 million for the rights to the south bay? And what I always read was that Wolff never offered anything for the rights and just wanted MLB to do his dirty work. It would seem to me that there is either a possible deal to be made and if they simply can’t bridge the gap then the A’s would have to accept Oakland or relocation. Did any of the key figures ever considering engaging or were the A’s too cheap to think about it and MLB and the Giants just unwilling?
MLB can do anything they want! Sacrosanct relocation fee for Vegas? NO PROBLEM, just get rid of it! Sacrosanct “value” of Santa Clara County ($J) to the giants? NO PROBLEM, just guarantee the giants franchise value with a team (A’s/expansion) in SCC/$J! If they’re valued at $3.5 billion, MLB could simply guarantee their value at $4 billion. This was done actually with the Orioles when Expos (Nats) relocated to DC.
Then again, Value Kings in NY, LA, and Chi seem to do just fine sharing their entire territories as two-team markets, so giants shouldn’t have a problem value-wise anyway with a team in SCC/$J.