Author Archives: Marine Layer

03.13.12
by

The price of contraction

Tomorrow marks the 7th anniversary of this here blog. Seven years! That’s an amazing amount of time to have nothing happen. Regardless, the blog has been a great learning experience for me, and based on the many positive emails I get, for the readers as well. Since we nothing concrete to go on, this week calls for a series of “what-if” posts. The first one was Monday’s examination of a hypothetical group buying the A’s from Lew Wolff. Today’s post is about the word I hate talking about, contraction. It’s not an idea that has legs at the moment. If the A’s and Rays continue to stagnate money-wise at their current homes, it’s something that could become a wedge issue when the next CBA negotiations come around in 2016.

If MLB were to attempt contraction, they’d run into myriad issues, from a difficult-to-break lease at Tropicana Field to MLBPA complaining about lost jobs (or at least salary) to potentially huge PR and legal muck. If MLB were to move forward on the path towards cutting down the leagues to 28 teams, it’s important to understand what the potential economic impacts are. To that end, I’ve put together a simple table showing lost direct revenues and jobs. I’ve not gone so far as to claim indirect economic loss, because I don’t know enough about the specific economic models of the various major and minor league franchises to make such a claim. Even so, you might find that the figures are staggering.

Contraction is not as simple as changing 25-man roster to 27 in order to compensate. There's a lot more at stake.

Thursday marks Day 1096 of the MLB panel counter, the three year anniversary of the “Blue Ribbon Commission” as so many of you like to call it. I had gone back into my archives to find a specific date on which Commissioner Selig may have convened the panel – no such luck. Absent such a date, I chose to line it up with the Ides of March. So there you have it. Happy Anniversary Week!

03.12.12
by

Two groups express interest in A’s

UPDATE 6:40 PM – Lew Wolff responds, reiterating that team is not for sale. From the article, Andy Dolich was contacted and denied that he was one of the “suitors” interested in the A’s. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said that if the team were sold to a more Oakland-friendly group, the Victory Court site may be considered again. There may even be a third group interested.

The A’s are not for sale, at least from everything I’ve read and heard. That hasn’t stopped two groups from expressing interest in buying the club, according to Matier and Ross.

Let’s play this little hypothetical out: If Bud Selig can’t broker a deal to get the A’s territorial rights to San Jose, then it would seem that Lew Wolff’s next step may be to put the team up for sale. Such a sale probably couldn’t be completed until 2013 at the earliest, which coincidentally is the same year the A’s lease ends at the Coliseum.

Forbes valued the A’s at $307 million last year, and should have a similar valuation this year. The going trend for franchise sales would have the team sell for a significant premium over that valuation.

Recent MLB franchise sales prices compared with Forbes valuations

The environment during which a hypothetical sale of the A’s occurs is much different from 1995, when Wally Haas sold the A’s to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann, or even 2003, when Schott sold the team to Wolff and John Fisher. Nowadays, Bud Selig is pushing hard to get the biggest possible sale price for outgoing owners, even rogues like Frank McCourt. Given the trend, I can’t see the A’s selling for less than $400 million on the open market, especially if there are competitive bids. This would happen even if the A’s low-revenue problems show few signs of improvement anytime soon.

Of course, after soon comes 2016, which is when the new CBA expires. There’s also that CBA provision in which teams in the largest markets become ineligible for revenue sharing. The Oakland situation is odd in that the A’s are supposed to be exempt from that rule as long as they’re stuck in the Coliseum. There’s still a little confusion on this which probably won’t be resolved until we actually see the document in final printed form, and that hasn’t happened yet. Here’s my guess as to why the A’s situation is so foggy:

  1. As long as the A’s only have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as their defined stadium territory, MLB has an excuse to consider them a low-revenue franchise despite the broad NorCal TV territory.
  2. If the A’s go to San Jose, it’s likely that Wolff will have gotten his wish that the Bay Area will become a shared territory (though I would expect the City of San Francisco to remain strictly with the Giants). If that shared territory deal occurs, the A’s would become a large market team by CBA definition.

The trouble facing any prospective buyer is that he’d be paying for the team in situation #1, with limited opportunities for growth. $400 million for just the franchise, perhaps more given that Wolff will want something for all of the headaches he’s gotten in pursuing a ballpark deal. Unlike the Haas-Schott sale, there are no hometown discounts anymore. The obvious revenue growth prospect is a stadium at Coliseum City, which by the time it could actually happen would cost at least $500 million. But, as we hammered here repeatedly, there’s a lot of doubt about the ability for the A’s to pay for a ballpark in Oakland. If the A’s pre-sold $100 million of the $500 million ballpark thanks to naming rights and such, the remaining $400 million converts to a $30 million annual mortgage payment over 30 years. Matier and Ross indicate that the 1990 record of 2.9 million in attendance is proof of the support, but that’s not the concern. The concern is what happens when the A’s are losing and fans don’t show up? The A’s recent revenue sharing receipts have been in the $30 million range. If the revenue sharing receipt effectively gets transferred to a bank to pay for the ballpark, it doesn’t solve the A’s competitiveness problems since they’d remain a poor team, in this case “house poor”. That’s a terrible investment on the owner’s and league’s part. I’m also skeptical that, with Selig’s focus on incoming owners’ liquidity, such a plan to keep the A’s in Oakland would pass muster. Selig or his successor isn’t going to sign off on Oakland becoming another Pittsburgh: great stadium, poor team.

A few months ago, some pro-Oakland. keep-them-at-the-Coliseum interests called Wolff to see if he was interested in selling. He confirmed that he wasn’t. So it’s funny, though not surprising, that the interests mentioned by Matier and Ross are from Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, not Oakland or the East Bay. With the A’s ongoing presence in Oakland precarious, it would seem better to have some kind of homegrown ownership group, lest an incoming group be called carpetbaggers all over again. If either of those groups were to go in, they’d invest at least $400 million in the team and $500 million in the stadium, with no guarantee of a great sales price once they feel like selling. That’s a tough proposition for any prospective buyer, and just one of the endgame scenarios Selig has to consider when deciding the A’s fate.

03.09.12
by

News for 3/9/12

Feels like we need this since the week has been dominated by the PR war.

  • The A’s announced today that they will have a private entrance for season ticket holders. The terms are that you’ll need the credential from your season ticket book along with your ticket to use the entrance. In addition, for any extra tickets you buy for a particular game, those holding the extra tickets won’t be able to use the entrance. It seems like this was done to reward STH during bobblehead and other high-demand giveaway games, though the FAQ emphasizes that distribution of giveaways will be proportional. The entrance will be next door to Ticket Services.
  • Jeff Moorad withdrew his application to become the “control person” of the Padres, leaving John Moores as the control person for the time being. The move is considered a procedural one, with the need to consummate a TV deal between the Padres and the new Fox Sports San Diego channel first. Moorad’s deal to acquire the team from Moores was constructed so that Moorad could stretch the timeline out to four years if necessary, though his intent was to acquire controlling interest sooner than that. MLB had raised concerns that Moorad might take a lot of the Fox money upfront and use it to buy out Moores or to pay down debt, instead of putting it into the franchise (the McCourt-Dodgers TV problem). It’s a smart move by MLB, because if the rumor had some merit it could’ve sapped some $10 milion per year in revenue from the team. Now the Padres are Exhibit A in how to pull off a sale that puts the team on the best financial footing. If anything, it looks like Moorad was putting the cart before the horse. And this article from the SD Union-Tribune sheds light on the group of owners set in opposition to Moorad. There’s a big difference between that and the supposed foment against T-rights changes that Lew Wolff faces.
  • In Miami, the 5,700+ parking spaces at the Marlins ballpark are proving to be a logistical nightmare, not like we didn’t see that coming. The suggestion: buy pre-paid parking or else you’re taking your chances finding a spot on someone’s lawn.
  • As he is wont to do, Peter Hartlaub went into the archives and found a concept for a huge, multipurpose stadium on what looks like Laney College. The year: 1960. 80,000 for football and 48,000 for baseball? Not without a lot of Astroturf.
  • MLS Commissioner Don Garber really wants a stadium and team somewhere in the five four boroughs of New York City. Sorry, Staten Island.
  • Bruce Jenkins has a few words about the A’s-Giants tete-a-tete. Surprisingly, he wants the Giants crushed and calls them bullies. Sounds good to me.
  • There’s a movement afoot to get rid of the television blackout once and for all.
  • Robert Gammon considers Coliseum City the last, best chance to retain Oakland’s teams. Sad then, that Oakland’s announcement was drowned out by the A’s-Giants drama. There was a press conference on Wednesday, though no representatives for the three teams showed up to provide support.
  • Tim Kawakami thinks Joe Lacob and Peter Guber should announce where they intend to settle by next year sometime. That might be a little premature. If the Giants were to build an arena in time for the 2017-18 NBA season, they wouldn’t have to break ground until summer 2015. That puts EIR and related prep work at the beginning of 2014. Even then, if there were some snags the Coliseum Authority isn’t going to say no to a year-to-year lease, since the debt service on Oracle Arena runs through 2027.
  • BTW – Yoenis Cespedes is expected to play his first MLB game ever on TV tomorrow against the Reds (CSNCA, Noon). Don’t miss it.

One more thing about the Giants’ press release: They implied that Wolff/Fisher got a no-San Jose discount when the A’s were purchased for $172 million in 2005. What then, do they say about Arte Moreno, who bought the Angels for $185 million in 2003? He didn’t have any territorial restrictions that called for a discount, and that was for a much larger market. Weak sauce Gigantes. Maybe if some of The Game’s and KNBR’s radio talent actually did some fact-checking they’d know this stuff.

Added 2:50 PM – The field is almost done!

03.08.12
by

The difference between 1990 and 2012

Following along with the previous post, I wanted to point out how things progressed during the Lurie-Haas era, and compare that to the Magowan/Neukom/Baer-vs.-Wolff era.

Lurie-Haas:

  • In anticipation of a stadium referendum in Santa Clara County, Bob Lurie asks Wally Haas Jr. for consent to claim Santa Clara County.
  • Haas approves. Santa Clara County, which had not until that point belonged to either team, becomes part of the Giants’ domain.
  • 1990 – Santa Clara County measure goes down to defeat.
  • 1992 – San Jose votes down another utility tax plan to fund its own ballpark.

At no point did the Commissioner or League Presidents have to intervene or rule on behalf of either team.

Magowan/Neukom/Baer-vs.-Wolff:

  • The Giants have SF, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Clara Counties as their defined territory. The A’s have Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
  • 2009 – After striking out in Fremont, Wolff looks to San Jose. Giants object. Commissioner Selig convenes three-man panel to study issue. A’s are not allowed to make an official stadium deal (including referendum) with San Jose until T-rights issue is resolved.
  • …wait through rest of 2009…
  • …wait through 2010…
  • …wait through 2011…
  • Giants astroturf group Stand for San Jose sues City of San Jose over preliminary land deal terms for ballpark.
  • 2012 – Commissioner Selig claims that issue is now on “front burner”.
  • …waiting…

Waiting.

P.S. – Tim Kawakami has called Billy Beane the designated grown-up in their chat today, while Ray Ratto’s analogy wins the day.

03.08.12
by

Giants revisionist history

One thing that I don’t think can be argued is that over the last 15 years or so, at least since Peter Magowan took control of the Giants franchise, the Giants have had a better PR machine going than the A’s. When the A’s hired former Giants PR head Bob Rose, it was a tacit acknowledgement of that superior effort. The Giants’ needling of the A’s in their Wednesday press release was a great example of their skill.

Except they missed a few facts.

Here’s a chunk of the release:

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions.

If you read that quickly, you might think it’s a simple, cut-and-dried scenario. In reality, the two sentences aren’t related at all. The Giants actually argued that Santa Clara County was not granted “subject to” a move. It wasn’t? Why was it granted, then? The Giants didn’t go into any explanation for what occurred (bullet points would’ve been helpful). The facts are these:

Bob Lurie asked Wally Haas for permission to take Santa Clara County in 1990. If the Giants feel that’s a myth and desire to dispel that myth, they should explain how they got Santa Clara County in 1990. As far as everyone knows, this is how it happened (via the Chronicle’s John Shea):

As Wally Haas [III] tells the story, the A’s were approached by Giants exec Corey Busch requesting exclusive rights to the area before the Giants’ proposed ballparks in Santa Clara and San Jose.

The A’s said OK, and the transfer became official when baseball owners granted approval.

That was it.

“We shared the territorial rights up to that point, the Giants and the A’s,” Haas said on the set of “Chronicle Live” on Thursday. “They asked if we would cede those rights to them so they could go through the referendum, and we felt that was fine.”

It takes some temerity to deny long-held history and not even provide an alternative. Quick chronology:

  • 1987 – San Francisco Proposition W fails at the ballot box. Bob Lurie throws the door open to building outside of San Francisco.
  • 1989 – Lurie works with San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos and Spectacor on a ballpark at China Basin (Proposition P). That effort fizzled in the wake of Loma Prieta.
  • 1990 – Lurie looks south to Santa Clara, where a ballpark could be built north of Great America. He asks Haas for permission and is granted county. The Santa Clara County (unincorporated)/San Jose/Mountain View/Los Altos/Milpitas/Santa Clara (city) utility tax goes down to defeat.
  • 1992 – Lurie turns his attention to San Jose, where Mayor Susan Hammer worked on a ballpark plan at 237/Zanker. The San Jose-only utility tax lost, and with it the hopes of having the Giants in the South Bay.
  • 1992 – Lurie comes to an agreement to sell the Giants to an investment group in St. Petersburg, where a domed stadium was built on spec.
  • 1993 – Walter Shorenstein and Larry Baer rally SF civic leaders in an effort to rescue the Giants. Peter Magowan, the head of Safeway, is brought in to be the managing partner. The price of the franchise is $95 or $100 million, depending on who you ask. The price is considered a discount in exchange for keeping the team in the Bay Area, as the Tampa Bay bid was higher. Magowan would go on to sign free agent Barry Bonds, and resign his Safeway post to focus full time on the Giants.
  • 1995 – Magowan and Baer craft another China Basin ballpark plan, partnering with Mayor Frank Jordan and later his successor, Willie Brown. In the meantime, Haas sells the A’s to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann for $85 million, with some $10-15 million of incurred debt discounting the price as well as another “hometown discount” to keep the team local.
  • 1996 – Proposition B, the Giants’ privately financed stadium plan, wins by a landslide.

This goes back to a question I posed when the Bill Madden article came out last weekend. Read it carefully, look back at the chronology, and think about it.

If Bob Lurie had not gone after the South Bay, he wouldn’t have been granted the rights by Wally Haas. After Lurie struck out in SF for the last time and threatened to move to Tampa Bay, Magowan/Shorenstein swooped in to save the Giants. Would Magowan have asked for rights to the South Bay in 1993-96 in order to finance AT&T Park, knowing that he wasn’t actually going to build there but rather in downtown SF?

The Giants maintain that because territorial rights were confirmed with subsequent CBA/Constitution ratifications, Santa Clara County should remain theirs in perpetuity. The problem with that argument is that until recently, no other team has formally pushed for a move to Santa Clara County. Sure, Schott had talks with Santa Clara in 2001, but those went nowhere fast and no serious prep work (EIR, feasibility study) was done. What is there to defend if no one is asking? Now the A’s are challenging those rights, and both teams are getting a little hot under the collar.

Finally, the Giants argue that because of the way the Bay Area was gerrymandered, the Wolff/Fisher 2005 purchase price of $172 or $180 million (depending on who you ask) is not reflective of the A’s having control over Santa Clara County. There is no comparable recent Giants sale price to compare it to, so we have nothing to go on there. The Giants’ 2011 franchise value, $563 million, has multiple components including the value of their ballpark and media empire, neither of which the A’s have. That makes it difficult to isolate what the true value of Santa Clara County is, at least when it comes to locating a stadium there. The Giants have also added and swapped partners in the intervening years more than 70’s Marin County couples at a key party, which makes it even more difficult to understand the value of any specific component or any particular stake.

One comparison you can make is the purchase prices of the two teams when Magowan and Schott entered the fray. To reiterate, Magowan’s bid for the Giants was $100 million in 1993. Schott’s bid for the A’s was $85 million in 1995. If we adjust the 1993 figure for inflation and ignore the downturn caused by the 1994 strike, a 1995 valuation is $105 million, a $20 million difference between the Giants and A’s. That’s probably the best comparison to make because it’s pre-AT&T Park and pre-media empire. Adjust that $20 million gap for inflation and the result is $30 million, which is what Roger Noll has argued territorial rights to the South Bay are worth. To some that may seem low and not reflective of baseball’s impressive post-strike growth. At 5% compound interest, the 2012 value is $45 million. At 10% it’s $101 million.

In any case, there is a value associated with an A’s move to the South Bay. It’s been the Selig panel’s charge to determine that value and the feasibility of the move. Maybe the Giants would be irreparably harmed if the A’s went to San Jose. I don’t believe they would, but I don’t have the information available to appraise the situation properly. The teams are busy spitting out press releases and statements. What I want is real figures. I want the presentation that the panel made to the MLB Executive Committee two months ago. Without that, we’re left with an incomplete picture and a lot of spin. Knowing that’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever see that presentation, I realize that my request is futile. I’m still putting it out there, hoping that at some point, we’ll all be better educated about all of this.

.

P.S. – I’ve also written about the price of T-rights in these posts: The Payoff, The Neukom Doctrine, A Territorial Rights Primer

03.08.12
by

San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo talks nuclear option

An updated version of Mark Purdy’s column from earlier today has an interesting quote from San Jose Council Member Sam Liccardo. Liccardo, whose District 3 includes downtown San Jose and borders the ballpark parcels, is a staunchly pro-A’s-to-San Jose.

Meanwhile, officials in San Jose said Wednesday they remain planted firmly in wait-and-see mode. However, Councilman Sam Liccardo, who represents the downtown area, for the first time raised the possibility of governmentally addressing MLB’s unique antitrust exemption, which permits the league to control franchise movement in ways other pro leagues cannot legally do.

Liccardo said that if the antitrust exemption comes to be viewed as an impediment to free-market competition and economic progress, perhaps it should be challenged.

“The Giants should have nothing to fear to see the A’s compete for fans in San Jose,” Liccardo said. “May the best team win. That’s the American way.”

I’ve written in the past that an actual legal challenge to the Giants’ territorial rights wasn’t in the cards because of the cost of making such a move and the City’s constant fiscal difficulties. On Tuesday, the San Jose City Council passed a controversial motion to put pension reform on the June ballot. Earlier today, I saw what appeared to be public employees picketing along West San Fernando and Almaden Blvd. There’s a new twist to the story, in that the City may run a surplus for the coming fiscal year. Even though the surplus may be a result of major cutbacks, it’s still easier to make legal moves in that environment than it would for a city running eight-figure deficits on an annual basis. It’s far too soon to tell whether or not to take Liccardo’s threat seriously. The way MLB jealously guards and protects its antitrust exemption, it could easily dig in for a protracted battle. Then again, it may run screaming from a fight and push the Giants to accept a payoff if that threat proves a little too real. There’s only one way to find out, I suppose…
03.07.12
by

A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

Update 9:38 PM – the Giants’ statement:

Statement from the San Francisco Giants Regarding Territorial Rights
March 7, 2012

The Commissioner has asked us to refrain from discussing the territorial rights issue publicly. Out of respect for his request, we will limit our response to setting the record straight on the history of territorial rights.

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions. Most significantly in 1994, Major League Baseball conducted a comprehensive review and re-definition of each club’s territories. These designations explicitly provide that the Giants territory include Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties and the A’s territory included Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The MLB owners unanimously approved those designated territories and memorialized them in the MLB Constitution. Since then, the MLB Constitution has been re-affirmed by the MLB owners – including by the A’s – on three different occasions (2000, 2005 and 2008), long after the Giants won approval to build AT&T Park. Mr. Wolff and Mr. Fisher agreed to these territorial designations and were fully aware of our territorial rights when they purchased the A’s for just $172 million in 2005.

The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory. Upon purchasing the team 20 years ago, our plan to revive the franchise relied heavily on targeting and solidifying our fan base in the largest and fastest growing county within our territory. Based on these Constitutionally-recognized territorial rights, the Giants invested hundreds of millions of dollars to save and stabilize the team for the Bay Area, built AT&T Park privately and has operated the franchise so that it can compete at the highest levels.

Update 5:40 PM – John Shea has reaction from the Giants:

This just came in a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

Media Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 7, 2012

STATEMENT BY OAKLAND A’S OWNERSHIP

REGARDING A’S AND GIANTS SHARING BAY AREA TERRITORY:

Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A’s cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A’s share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.’

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A’s do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants were unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants’ great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A’s.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.

Discuss. The emphasis is in the original release.

Added 10:29 AM – Susan Slusser has some musings.

Added 10:51 AM – Nina Thorsen is present at (and reminded me of) Oakland’s press conference regarding Coliseum City.

Updated 10:56 AM – Release updated to correct typo (“were” instead of “we”)

Updated 1:15 PM – Mark Purdy gets quotes from Wolff.

03.07.12
by

3/6/12 News Analysis

First off, a quick acknowledgement of the unanimous approval of the Kings ESC arena deal by Sacramento’s City Council. Somehow, that happened a full hour before the Oakland approved its resolutions and expenditures for the Coliseum City project. There’s still a long way to go. The $255 million that Sacramento is committing to the project is the big semi-known. If KJ and company can put a deal together that doesn’t look too risky (and force a referendum because of that risk), they’ll be in pretty good shape. There are still issues of which route the City will go to come up with the $255 million (selling parking rights vs. raising bonds), the Maloofs’ ongoing debt, and the typical EIR mitigation stuff that will be identified in the coming months. Onward and upward.

I realize that my liveblog notes from the Oakland City Council meeting are so messy that they’re nearly incomprehensible, so I’ll boil the whole thing down to its essence.

1. The Council voted for a feasibility study and EIR, not to build anything.

Just to be clear, here’s the relevant language from last week’s committee report (emphasis mine):

The ENA [exclusive negotiating agreement] with the JRDV/HKS/Forest City development team will allow private predevelopment work to proceed for Area 1. The ENA between the City and the development team is for the purpose of determining the capacity of the development team to deliver on the project, and for studying and evaluating the feasibility of a new stadium development.

In other words, it’s a start. It’s not a promise to replace the Coliseum or erect a ballpark next door. It’s about determining whether this concept, Coliseum City, actually makes sense. Speaker after speaker brought up the legacy of major pro sports in Oakland, totaling 111 years (impressive). Some brought up the soul of the city, or how teams leaving could negatively impact the next generation of Oaklanders. Problem is that all these appeals to passion and soul at least indirectly led to the bad deal that the City and Alameda County got into in the first place with Mt. Davis. Ignacio De La Fuente has been consistent in his desire not to bend over backwards for any team, and that any team that wants a deal in what he considers the best land for a stadium in the Bay Area has to be an equal, willing partner. Or in this case, three equal, willing partners. Which brings me to the next issue…

2. The City Council is couching their words.

Libby Schaaf brought up the fact that the original resolution(s) did not specifically call for a project alternative in which no new stadium is built, so she asked for a rewording and got it. This request came after just about every other Council Member other than Larry Reid and Rebecca Kaplan (who was absent) talked about the “no stadium” alternative. That’s the case where either it doesn’t make sense to build a new stadium to replace the Coliseum, or no team is interested in such a stadium, or some other set of circumstances in which a stadium can’t happen. Those in the audience didn’t want to hear it – they want to hear about progress and results – but it’s a big step forward for the City Council. Last year I wrote about the adult conversation that Sacramento was having with its residents over the Kings future. Oakland is getting closer to having their own discussion, which will be all the more painful because it will involve three teams and choosing favorites.

However, the choices won’t be as simple as “build or don’t build”. There will be an array of choices, permutations, and even sites to consider. Assistant City Administrator Fred Blackwell noted at the outset that because the redevelopment money for the Coliseum City is supposed to be confined to that specific redevelopment area, it couldn’t be used outside the project area. Then Eric Angstadt clarified that all reasonable alternatives will be studied, including sites or options that may be outside Oakland. Who’s right? I guess we’ll find out. My immediate reaction is that if redevelopment is going away from a project/operations standpoint, what does it matter what redevelopment area it’s in?

3. 980 Park and the Ghost of Victory Court

I counted two mentions of Victory Court all night, one by Larry Reid and one by a speaker. It’s almost as if VC has been wiped from people’s memories. Just 14 months ago the Council Chambers was packed to the rafters and an overflow room was needed to hold everyone for a planning commission hearing on VC. This time, a third of the audience was on hand for a different, non-sports issue on the Council’s agenda, and they left when that issue was resolved. There were few people in the balconies, and there were plenty of seats available in the chambers for latecomers. I noticed that neither Let’s Go Oakland nor Baseball Oakland heavily promoted this session, so that may have something to do with the lower turnout.

On the other hand, 980 Park rose like a phoenix. Multiple West Oakland residents spoke in favor of it. Bryan Grunwald spoke out about it, as you’d expect. Nancy Nadel mentioned that her constituents were interested in it, and Jane Brunner pushed it forward. Brunner indicated that there were discussions with city staff about 980 Park’s feasibility, so since Coliseum City’s going through a feasibility study, might as well include 980 Park, even if it’s simply to find out if it makes any sense cost or time-wise. Redevelopment funding issue aside, it can’t hurt to include 980 Park as an alternative. One speaker rightly pointed out that if Coliseum City and its Oakland Live! concept became successful, it could seriously harm the existing downtown Oakland. Cities usually don’t have two downtowns, at least not successful ones. San Jose knows this well, as they forever killed downtown’s retail growth by approving Santana Row three miles away. Downtown Las Vegas is the low-rent, shopworn alternative to the glamour of The Strip. In the next year I can see the Council ask for a full economic impact report, explaining how creating a second downtown could have a complementary or deleterious effect on the original downtown.

…

That’s it for this early morning. I have a postscript item to tack on, but that will have to wait until the business day starts. Until then, comment away.

03.06.12
by

More from Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12

Update 11:27 PM – Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

These are raw notes I’m taking as we go. Voting result will be posted at the top when it’s done.

Blackwell mentioned that because teams are in various discussions with other jurisdictions, plan should also include non-stadium alternatives.

Potential conflicts of interest with one contract provided for planning and development. Decoupling was necessary. So it’s #1 ENA for master planning, #2 for EIR

Urgency. A’s are actively pursuing San Jose. There are a number of obstacles. Giants have expressed opposition. Likely a public vote.

Raiders. They’ve expressed desire to stay with a brand new facility. They are being courted by a variety of interests in SoCal. NFL has been pushing a model with multiple teams playing in one stadium, which could be pursued in Santa Clara vis-a-vis 49ers and Raiders.

Warriors – have had discussions. Are farthest away from making a move. SF has been in discussions.

Funding agreement – funds came from Coliseum Redevelopment Area. Funds are limited to affecting Coliseum area, not available outside area. Funding includes a transfer of assets (redevelopment). Legislation (AB1X26) to eliminate redevelopment indicates that such transfers may be under review. According to City Attorney, actions with third party agreements should be protected from “clawback” (reclamation by state).

Eric Angstadt in response to question by Jane Brunner – Premature to say what will be studied, but all recommended alternatives will be studied in terms of project goals. There will be a report of which alternatives are studied and why. EIR process will study alternatives that are reasonable, including (potentially) sites outside of the city.

23 public speakers – No one against, do not see Bryan Grunwald. Mayor Quan wasn’t in the Chambers initially, now is in the back corner

Chris Dobbins – Save Oakland Sports

San Jose resident argues for Coliseum City as a Raider fan.

Keith Salminen – Not just Oakland’s problem. It’s East Bay’s problem. Future of the East Bay is at stake.

Dr. Death – Humbly ask to fund the studies. Can’t forget the past. 111 years of tradition gone forever. Devastating to the economy and pride. Will be expensive, but you have to spend money to make money. Project may be eligible for $40 million in TOD funds.

Black Hole guy from Brentwood

White guy in red A’s hat and Run-TMC Mullin jersey. If you get rid of the team you get rid of a big part of Oakland’s soul. What do you have left if there’s no soul?

One dissenter, didn’t catch his name – Doesn’t want two downtown Oaklands. Wants the ballpark to be down the street near downtown. Is he referring to 980 Park? Compares situation to Las Vegas with the old Vegas and The Strip.

Bryan Grunwald is here, is given 4 minutes. Supports resolution, argues for scope to be expanded. Ask to spend money on feasibility of 980 Park. Differs with Blackwell on limits of redevelopment funds. (If redevelopment ceases to exist, do the limits matter?) If there is a no-stadium alternative at Coliseum City, why not have the stadium downtown/uptown? To put all eggs in the Coliseum basket is ridiculous and a waste of public money.

Larry Jackson reminds Council that he proposed Coliseum City two years ago.

Jorge Leon spoke once, wanted to speak again but was told to sit down by Larry Reid.

Council members

De La Fuente – Supports resolutions. Understands passion of fans. We don’t have to bargain or beg for our teams because our site is the best. The teams are an asset, but they also want to be here. Can’t forget we are subsidizing the franchises for $10 million/year. We can do better next time. We are prepared to work hard, but it takes two to tango. It’s responsible to look at the no stadium alternative. We can’t force teams to stay. Hopefully we’re sending one more message tonight that we’re willing to work with MLB. Hopefully we’ll get the same in return.

Brooks – In the last year I think we’re making moves like we’re talking to the teams in a way they understand. Refers to opening of management of contracts for Coliseum, which she started.

Brunner – Congratulations Mr. Reid. He has been pushing the Coliseum (his district) as long as I can remember. The only reason we didn’t look at the Coliseum was that the A’s were saying they wouldn’t go there. I’m in total support of this. The reason I’m interested in (980 Park) is that there’s a chance that the A’s will still come back to us and say we’re still not interested in the Coliseum. Talking to staff offline, we need to understand the feasibility of doing it over the freeway. It’s good if we know the pros and cons.

Schaaf – We all want all of our teams to stay, but we don’t totally control that. We have to be mindful that there are other people who control those decisions. There will be scenarios if one or more of those teams don’t stay. Resolution does not include that kind of language, so will ask Blackwell to include it. Coliseum City doesn’t adequately describe how big it is.

(Angstadt clarifies that non-stadium alternative will be specified in the professional services contract.)

Reid – Nobody’s spent more time on this than I have. I tried to get Dan Lindheim to see it, he wouldn’t. I tried to get Jerry Brown to see it and he wouldn’t. Thanks to the Mayor and to Jane Brunner for writing the letter to MLB.

Nadel – Constituents support 980 Park as part of study.

Reid – If we do nothing then we will lose every sports franchise in our city. When we first sat down with Lew Wolff and showed him our vision of Coliseum City, he took it down to San Jose (sic) and came up with the 66th-High Street. If we give MLB two options and MLB tells him, “Here are two options, take one or put the team up for sale,” Oakland would never be the same. (Referring to Coliseum City and Victory Court). I’m glad that someone caught the vision. I just hope it’s not too late.

Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

On the way out I introduced myself to Bryan Grunwald and held the door for Desley Brooks as she left City Hall. If there were any winners tonight, they were Brooks and Reid.

03.06.12
by

Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12: Coliseum City Feasibilty Study

Today’s Oakland City Council meeting began at 5:30, with the non-consent part set to start at 6:30. The last item for the night is the S-13, regarding approval of a two-part expenditure for the Coliseum City feasibility study. Here’s the item as described in the meeting agenda:

Subject: Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex From: Office Of Neighborhood Investment Recommendation: Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
1) A Resolution Authorizing An Exclusive Negotiating Agreement With JRDV Urban International, HKS Sports And Entertainment, HKS Inc., And Forest City Real Estate Services LLC, Or Affiliated Entities, For Development Of The Coliseum City Project At The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex And Environs, And Authorizing Predevelopment Funding Of The Developer’s Planning Work In An Amount Not To Exceed $1.6 Million; And
(11-0291)

2) A Resolution Authorizing A Professional Services Contract With Lamphier-Gregory And Team Of Consultants, In An Amount Not To Exceed $1,900,000, For Services Related To The Oakland Alameda Coliseum Complex And Environs And The Oakland Airport Business Park Specific Plans And Environmental Impact Report Without Return To Council
(11-0291-1)

The Coliseum City plan is actually divided into two project areas. Area 1 is the Coliseum complex and several adjacent pieces of land, including the HomeBase acquisitions and parcels in between the complex and BART station. Area 2 is much of the land on the other side of the Nimitz, which includes Zhone among other pieces. The total expenditure of $3.5 million is relevant to Area 1, because item #1 is for the planning aspect and item #2 is earmarked for the EIR work.

Approval of the contract will give the respective parties 12-18 months to complete their work. That does not mean that further EIR work won’t be required. Any new buildings, such as a third sports venue, hotel, or office building(s) will require at the very least a supplement onto the plan EIR. It’s possible that if a new Coliseum were to replace the old one without an additional ballpark or third venue, a supplemental or additional EIR wouldn’t be needed. It’s not really worth discussing further until Oakland has to cross that bridge.

In keeping with other large scale planning and EIR work, I expect that we won’t see a draft document for at least a year. If the stakeholders, including the pro sports franchises, are interested and willing to play ball, we could see action regarding a deal after that point.

I’ll be at the meeting at 6:30 or so. Hope to see a lot of sports fans there. I’ll update this space as news comes.

Update 6:41 PM – Arrived. Council has item S-11, Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan, up right now. Below is a picture of the Council Chambers.

20120306-184411.jpg

Quick observation: Mostly Raiders gear in the not-full crowd, with a smattering of A’s and W’s garb. Obviously there’s overlap.

Update 7:04 PM – Coliseum City item is now up! And there are 43 speaker cards! Settling in. Wait, they’re dealing with the strange Desley Brooks teen center matter first. That item (S-10) has the 43 speaker cards. No hope of getting out of here before 9.

Update 8:16 PM – Quote of the night from a speaker yelling at the City Council meeting: “SHOW ME WHERE THE PROBE IS!!!!”

Update 10:08 PM – FINALLY the teen center thing is over. At least a third of the audience has left. Now it’s on to Coliseum City. 25 speakers, mercifully. This should be a slam dunk. Assistant City Administrator Fred Blackwell is describing the project.