Category Archives: Athletics

01.07.14
by

Think winning helps to get a new ballpark? Think again.

One of the emerging narratives I heard when the A’s started playing well in 2012 was

The A’s are playing well, they don’t need to move, they may not even need a new ballpark.

As the team continued to succeed through the 2013 season, the narrative changed to

The A’s are winning in Oakland, they have to build here. The fans are coming out!

…along with…

If the A’s win the World Series, they’ll get their new ballpark in Oakland.

That lingered with me for a while. Other than the bandwagon factor on attendance, what does winning have to do with getting a new ballpark built? Turns out that winning has very little to do with getting a ballpark built. One idea often thrown out there is the notion that a team can ride the momentum of winning seasons, pennants, and rings to build the public goodwill necessary to seal a stadium deal. Over the past 20+ years, that generally has not been the case. Most ballparks are built absent of significant on-field success, the deals forged by behind-the-scenes political planning, not so much the optics of celebrating fans.

I wasn’t aware of how little winning mattered until I did the math. I took a look at all of the ballparks (not multipurpose stadia) built in the modern era, starting with US Cellular Field (New Comiskey) in 1991. Then I added up their respective home teams’ records and attendance going back 7 years. Why 7? A ballpark usually takes 3 years to build, an additional 2 to plan and approve, plus another 1-2 years depending on political and economic climate, legal hurdles, or other obstacles.

Out of 22 new ballparks built and 138 seasons – 129 full seasons when accounting for strike-shortened 1994 – played prior to opening of those parks, teams have combined to accrue a grand total of 1 World Series championship, 7 league pennants, and 29 postseason appearances (division crowns or wild card spots).

A list of 22 new ballparks built in the modern era. Legacy ballparks that have undergone renovations are not included.

A list of 22 new ballparks built in the modern era. Legacy ballparks that have undergone renovations are not included.

The astounding thing about all this futility is that the sole World Series was won by the Braves, a team that didn’t need to win to build support for a ballpark because they were getting a free ballpark after the 1996 Summer Olympics ended. In the run-up to the Games, the Braves were folded into the venue scheme when the Centennial Olympic Stadium was conceived in such a way that it could be converted from a track-and-field stadium to a ballpark after the Games ended. Since the funding was provided entirely by sponsors, there was no need to sell the stadium to the public. The Yankees experienced 2 World Series losses in the years before the new Yankee Stadium. Only 2 other teams even made it to the Series during their pre-ballpark runs.

What happened more frequently was that teams were quite terrible leading up to their new digs. The Tigers were atrocious by design, as Mike Ilitch chose to use that period for rebuilding and to help pay for what would eventually be Comerica Park. The Marlins were built to tank until a park came, as were the Brewers. The Pirates chose to rebuild in their post-Bonds period, an era that lasted much longer than anyone envisioned. And Cleveland was continuing that great legacy of ineptitude that spawned a movie franchise. Two teams in the above list were expansion teams. The Rockies played at Mile High for two years while Coors Field was being completed, whereas the Diamondbacks were deferred until 1998 when Chase Field opened. A third team, the Nationals, effectively acted as an expansion team because they were sold by MLB to the highest bidder and Washington was granted the franchise move conditionally upon completion of a ballpark deal.

The Giants, whose new ownership made a big splash in 1993 by signing Barry Bonds, was often said to have started working on their downtown SF ballpark plan once they took the reins. Even so, the team split its time between being competitive but not good enough to win the division (late 90’s) and nearly unwatchable (mid 90’s). Winning didn’t build the park, Bonds did.

Some teams tried to follow the formula of building a team to coincide with the opening of a park. The Giants are certainly one of those. The Indians are a classic example, going to the postseason in 6 out of the first 7 full seasons at Jacobs Field (Progressive). The Twins tried to anticipate such a window by signing local superstar Joe Mauer to a long contract extension coinciding with opening of Target Field. Injuries to Mauer, Justin Morneau, and a slew of pitchers severely crippled the franchise, which is still trying to get back to relevance after its successful opening season outdoors. The blueprint worked for the Orioles and Rangers, and more recently the Phillies. In all of these cases the franchises anticipated major revenue growth upon moving to their new homes, which is exactly what happened.

Going into the recent winter meetings, Billy Beane talked about not having a “five year plan,” code for the kind of rebuilding phase we’d normally associate with the run-up to a new ballpark. That’s a very different stance than he had taken in 2007 or 2010, when he was more likely to speak in terms of planning for the future, with a ballpark in Fremont or San Jose in mind. Now that the competitive window is wide open and the future of the franchise is in flux, there’s no need to be in that mode. It’s as pure a win-now mentality as we’ve seen with Beane at the helm.

Some will look at this and talk correlation not implying causation. What I’m saying is that historically, winning isn’t associated with teams and new parks until after those parks open. My point is to drop any hint of causation in the run-up because there is no correlation. If you are looking for causation, consider that 5 World Series (and 10 pennants) have been won by teams in the first 7 years after a modern era ballpark opened (NYY 1, PHI 1, STL 2, ARI 1).

That said, could winning help make the case for the A’s? I suppose there’s a small chance, if winning gooses season ticket and premium sales sustainably to the point of funding the ballpark to a similar amount seen with other ballparks. That would mean hitting around 20,000 season ticket subscriptions or more (the A’s are under 10,000 currently). It might also mean PSL sales, or locking in several dozen businesses to sponsorships and suite contracts. But is that realistic? There’s a disconnect here, as the big corporate deals tend to run in the 5-10 year range if not longer. Winning is much more fleeting than that. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals can leverage winning tradition better than most because they’ve proven it repeatedly. It’s a form of currency for them. The A’s don’t have that. If the A’s aren’t competitive this year for whatever reasons, look for the attendance and sales gains seen in the past two years to quickly recede. By winning, I don’t mean getting to the LDS or even the LCS. I mean winning the last game of the season. That’s our legacy, whether we’re talking Finley, Haas, Schott, or Wolff. To look to winning as an elixir to solve the ballpark dilemma is to trivialize winning. Anyone who watched the A’s in the late 90’s, late 00’s, and late 70’s knows full well how difficult winning is. My advice to fans is to not worry about winning creating momentum. Enjoy the on field exploits as they occur, and let the ballpark business unfold on its own. You can’t count on winning being a big part of the solution.

01.01.14
by

The stage shifts in 2014

As we bring on a new year and a new baseball season, let’s reflect on the rather tumultuous year that was 2013.

  • January – FanFest was a great event again, though the cramped concourses at Oracle Arena had many fans wishing for the event to be held at the Coliseum instead.
  • The Coliseum Authority raided scoreboard funds to pay for the ongoing Coliseum Study.
  • February – Oakland officials were forced to apologize to A’s owner Lew Wolff for misplacing a letter requesting further lease extension talks.
  • March – The City of Mesa, AZ, approved a renovation plan and 20-year lease for Hohokam Stadium that will bring the A’s over from their longtime spring home, Phoenix Municipal Stadium. 2014 will be the last year at Muni for the A’s, after which the stadium will be home to the ASU Sun Devils. The Cubs, who vacated Hohokam after 2013, are moving to their own mega-complex on the west side of Mesa.
  • San Jose was dealt the first of a series of setbacks when the state rolled back the City’s transfer of the Diridon ballpark site to the Diridon Development Authority. Eventually the City and Santa Clara County worked out the details of a deal, though it remains up in the air for now. In addition, a request to disqualify the Stand for San Jose lawsuit failed.
  • April/May – Kevin Johnson rallied Sacramento and Bay Area interests to put together an ownership group that eventually bought the NBA Kings from the Maloof family.
  • SAP takes over for HP as naming rights sponsor of San Jose’s Arena. Most fans continue to call the building The Shark Tank.
  • The Giants refinance the remaining debt at AT&T Park (originally due to be paid off in 2017) in order to provide funds for their own project in the parking lot across McCovey Cove from the ballpark.
  • Oakland Fan Pledge kicks off a campaign to build a list of fans willing to buy  season tickets (and in some cases PSLs) at a new A’s ballpark in Oakland. Currently there are just over 5,000 pledges.
  • Levi’s Stadium and the 49ers are awarded Super Bowl L in 2016. While the game will take place in the new stadium in Santa Clara, most of the other festivities will take place in San Francisco at venues like Moscone Center.
  • June – San Jose files an antitrust lawsuit against MLB, alleging that the league’s stalling is costing the City tax revenues.
  • A settlement between Howard Terminal operator SSA and the Port of Oakland could help clear the way for a ballpark on the waterfront site. Site proponents call this move “site control.” The Port was also motivated to get rid of an expensive, ongoing lawsuit by SSA over more favorable lease terms given to a nearby rival operator.
  • A sewer main at the Coliseum is clogged, causing sewage to overflow the clubhouse level and requiring the teams to use the Raiders’ facilities (up one level). Eventually a towel or piece of clothing is found to be the culprit.
  • July – A feasibility study for Coliseum City outlines the funding gap (now $400-500 million) that needs to be bridged for a new stadium, along with an explanation of the economic weaknesses of the East Bay market.
  • The Earthquakes’ stadium is further delayed (until 2015) when numerous underground bunkers are found and need to be demolished before building anew. Erection of the stadium bowl would begin in late December.
  • August – Raiders owner Mark Davis starts crowing for a long lease extension at the Coliseum, with the condition that the extension comes with a replacement to the Coliseum, preferably on the same site as the current stadium.
  • MLB and the San Jose make filings in anticipation of an October hearing in their antitrust lawsuit.
  • September – Lew Wolff clarifies that he seeks a five-year lease after the current lease ends after the 2013 season, with flexibility to leave early if impacted by a Raiders stadium.
  • October – A federal judge throws out San Jose’s antitrust complaint against MLB, but allows the City an immediate appeal (Ninth Circuit) and for the state tort claims to continue. The state claims were also thrown out at the end of the year.
  • A private investor group headed by LA mega-hedge fund Colony Capital and Dubai’s HayaH Holdings signs on to be the financial muscle behind the Coliseum City development. The group, teamed up with architecture firm JRDV, is tasked with providing a series of deliverables that will determine the feasibility of the project.
  • Bloomberg estimates that the A’s are worth $590 million, a huge jump over Forbes’ preseason estimate of $468 million.
  • November – With talks between the A’s and the JPA at an impasse, MLB steps in and negotiates a two-year extension for the A’s, resolving an outstanding issue regarding parking taxes. The Raiders receive a one-year extension with a one-year team option, which they would presumably exercise if they saw sufficient progress on the stadium front.
  • December – The Oakland City Council and Alameda County Board of Supervisors hold their first joint session to discuss the pros and cons of Coliseum City. The Supes claim that the City has dragged the County along, and the County has not been sufficiently involved in the process.
  • A court filing in the antitrust case states that MLB denied the A’s proposal to move to San Jose in June, just before the lawsuit was filed. MLB is unwilling to disclose the contents of the rejection letter. Sources inside baseball indicate that the A’s proposal, not the City of San Jose, was denied, opening the door to another proposal that MLB could conceivably accept.
  • Renderings of the Howard Terminal ballpark are released. It appears that the vision would try to avoid the BCDC’s jurisdiction by placing the footprint sufficiently inland. It is unclear if such a move will work. Normal CEQA issues remain, and proper environmental review has not started yet. Meanwhile, the Port solicits bids for use at the vacated terminal per state law.

What can we expect in 2014? A lot of follow-up to many of the issues above. Lawsuits will continue, and short-term leases only kick the can down the road. With the leases temporarily out of the way, 2014 is the year of the election. Both Oakland and San Jose have mayoral races this year. Oakland Mayor Jean Quan finds herself at the top of a list of five declared candidates. The race to replace San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed will also be hot and heavy, with several current council members facing off against a former councilman and current county supervisor. We should expect to see some serious progress on Coliseum City’s feasibility, as several project deliverables are due in the first half of the year. Oakland partisans will continue to flog Wolff, while San Jose partisans flog Mayor Quan. 2014 is also Commissioner Bud Selig’s last full year in his job. The search for his replacement could be interesting, though the favorite is currently COO and longtime MLB exec Rob Manfred. Movement on the antitrust lawsuit is not expected until the spring, and the “forgotten” Stand for San Jose lawsuit continues its machinations. All in all it looks to be a very newsworthy year. Will attendance continue to grow? Will it be an eventful 2014? That depends on whether anything gets resolved. This site has been running for nearly nine years. The stadium situation has never looked more muddled, with no end in sight. Something’s gotta give, right? Right?

12.23.13
by

The Solomonesque solution that thankfully never happened

When the latest Matier and Ross column featuring Coliseum City and the A’s dropped over the weekend, I wasn’t sure if I should follow-up right away or wait for the proverbial other shoe to drop. Drop it did, with a press release coming from the A’s early today. Frankly, I don’t know what to make of any of it. BayIG (the combined investor/developer group) was supposed to contact the A’s starting in mid-November. Now it’s all a bunch of he-said/she-said. It’s all meaningless in the grand scheme of things, so I won’t bother wasting anymore words on it.

Instead I’ll reference a nightmare scenario that happened almost 40 years ago. It involves a Charlie Finley anecdote that I hadn’t fully heard until I read his 2010 biography some time ago. In the late 70’s, Finley was fighting a personal two-front war, an acrimonious divorce on one side and skyrocketing salaries that threatened his ability to operate the A’s on the other. (He also had other feuds with MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, the Coliseum Commission and numerous players and agents, but I digress.) Knowing his time in baseball was running out, Finley chose to put the team up for sale as soon as 1977. Numerous suitors surfaced, some offering to keep the team in Oakland and other looking to move the franchise out at the end of the 1977 season. The most famous buyer was oil billionaire Marvin Davis, whose family was said to be the model for the soap opera Dynasty. Davis also owned the 20th Century Fox studio for some time before selling it to some Australian named Rupert Murdoch.

The difficult part of the move was the generally ironclad lease the Coliseum had with the A’s. It was a 20-year term, with an expensive buyout if the A’s left. As the Coliseum filed a $35 million lawsuit against Finley, Finley worked with Kuhn and Giants owner Bob Lurie to figure out a solution. Wait, what did Bob Lurie have to do with this?

Kuhn had been convinced that, with both teams showing poor attendance, the Bay Area was only a one-team market. He spoke to pols in both San Francisco and Oakland to work on a compromise, but in the end the Bay Area would be left with only one team. Previously, Lurie had bought the team from Horace Stoneham, saving SF from the prospect of moving the Giants to Toronto. Lurie was brought into the talks to figure out what role the Giants would have in a one-team Bay Area.

The solution, as architected by Kuhn and others before the 1978 season, would’ve been to have the A’s sold to Marvin Davis, which would’ve gotten rid of Kuhn’s nemesis Finley. Then in order to compromise on the Coliseum lease, the Giants would’ve played some number of games at the Coliseum, 25-40 depending on how the final deal was drawn up. In San Francisco the team would’ve been called the San Francisco Giants, while in Oakland the team would’ve been called simply the Giants. Kuhn recalled:

For the next three weeks, the politicians, the baseball administration and the lawyers struggled to find solutions. At last, amazingly, parity was agreed to. The team name would be the San Francisco Giants except in Oakland, where it would be the Giants. Financial payments to the Oakland Coliseum were set at $3.25 million. The internal fight within baseball was difficult when Finley would put up no more than $1 million as his share of the Coliseum payment. Even that we were able to persuade the clubs to accept. But, when we asked him [Finley] to waive claims of any kind against baseball, he balked.

Even though Finley was leaving baseball – forever – he still wanted to keep his right to sue just in case he felt he got ripped off. Finley was no stranger to courtrooms, so this could be expected. Still, you’d think that after all that work (and his building desperation) he would’ve waived that one right in order to finish the deal. The sale fell apart and Finley went into full fire sale mode, finally selling the team to the Haas family in 1980.

Consider the ramifications:

  • The Giants would’ve become the San Francisco Giants/Giants, probably playing most of the Oakland games before football season.
  • The buyout would’ve funded improvements to the Coliseum that Al Davis was seeking, improvements that probably would’ve kept the Raiders in Oakland.
  • From that point forward, the Bay Area would’ve been a one-team town, with a young, growing city like San Jose pursuing an expansion franchise.
  • Eventually, the team-sharing situation would’ve created a race between SF and Oakland to build a permanent home when leases at both Candlestick Park and the Coliseum expired in the late 80’s. Territorial rights would’ve included the “BART counties” plus Marin County.
  • Rickey Henderson, who was drafted in 1976, would’ve spent much of his career in Denver. The same could be said of Tony Armas and Dwayne Murphy, among others. Marvin Davis had the money to bolster the team’s payroll, so the chances of keeping a talented young team intact were very good.

So this Christmas, thank the ghost of Charlie Finley for being so selfish that he had to be able to sue – just in case. Without that, the Oakland Athletics would’ve been a 10 year experiment, a blip on the radar, an historical anomaly.

—

(h/t Rob Neyer, who referenced the near-sale when the A’s-to-China Basin reports surfaced. I didn’t see his post until after I finished this one.)

12.18.13
by

Wolff reconsiders the Coliseum – to what end?

If you want to know what I thought immediately when I heard that Lew Wolff is reconsidering the idea of building a ballpark at the Coliseum, well, Ray Ratto beat me to it.

If, on the other hand, you want to entertain the idea that Wolff is being forthright and sees the Coliseum as a real option, I have some ideas about that too.

But first, let’s step back to June 2012, and the Save Oakland Sports meeting I attended. As we were wrapping up, one of the SOS principals (used to be “A’s observer” in the comments) asked me, Do you think Lew Wolff would consider building in Oakland? My response was, Yes, but you have to make it worth his while. He’s trying to pay for a ballpark and make it pencil out, so if Oakland has some mechanisms to make that happen, I think he would be interested.

At the time I figured people would interpret that to mean cash or free ballpark. What I was suggesting was that if Oakland can figure out a way to bridge the gap between what makes San Jose so attractive (corporate interest) and Oakland’s limitations, there could be a solution in Oakland. Can Coliseum City bridge that gap? That’s the billion-dollar question.

Remember that when Wolff was first hired as VP of venue development, he pushed for a ballpark on the Malibu & HomeBase lots, the latter of which was not owned by the JPA. The JPA nixed Wolff’s idea and later bought the HomeBase lot for Coliseum City and the Raiders. Steve Schott preferred a ballpark – if in Oakland – to be in the north parking lot of the Coliseum. That idea was a nonstarter due to potential conflicts with the other tenant teams (Warriors, Raiders) and the area still stinging politically from the Mt. Davis debacle. When Wolff took over as managing partner, he first offered up his Coliseum North vision. The light industrial area includes the old drive-in/swap meet, the now-shuttered Columbo bakery, and several other small businesses. This concept also died quickly, as the City didn’t want to entertain the prospect of buying out businesses and the limited amounts Wolff was willing to offer to seal the deal.

Now there is Coliseum City, which could bridge the gap via third party investor funds. In effect this is a substitute for the normal public subsidy we so often see in the stadium game. The idea is to have Colony Capital and HayaH Holdings take care of some amount of the gap on their own. How much they will be willing to fund for one or more new venues will depend largely on the what forthcoming market study recommends for the project.

BayIG, the combined group of developers and capital, is supposed to have reached out to both the A’s and Warriors in attempts to get them to agree to be involved in Coliseum City. Until now both teams’ ownership groups have shown little interest in partnering with BayIG and the Raiders on Coliseum City as they’re pursuing their own venue plans in San Jose and San Francisco, respectively. However, there is a way I could see Lew Wolff showing interest in CC, especially as a potential funding mechanism.

That way occurs if Coliseum City isn’t feasible for the Raiders. Even though the Raiders are the anchor tenant, there’s a great chance that they’ll have to back out, simply because the costs of building their own stadium are prohibitive. Recently there was talk of a $400-500 million funding gap for the stadium, and with typical football-related sources potentially maxed out, it’s difficult to see how development alone would pay for a large portion. For instance:

Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project

Three phases of Coliseum City have ballpark built out at the end of the project

Phase I doesn’t address any new sources of revenue to fund the project, except the possibility of selling Coliseum land (Property Transfer). Given the remaining debt on the Coliseum of $100 million (and dropping each year by 7-8%) and the cost of infrastructure, it’s likely that any proceeds from land sales would be wiped out by that combination of costs. It’s likely that BayIG and the JPA would work together to create a Community Facilities District (Mello-Roos) or Infrastructure Finance District, whose purpose is to collect various taxes to fund the project. CFDs require majority votes, whereas IFDs require two-thirds supermajority votes. In the case of the 49ers’ stadium plan, a CFD was approved by the public. Historically IFDs are tougher to put together and approve, though some legislators including State Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) have been making headway on that front. It’s not quite the new redevelopment as it’s limited to infrastructure, but it’s an important step.

Phase II provides for limited ancillary development next to the football stadium. It could raise a $1-2 million per year, depending on how money is extracted from the condo developments. Hypothetically, if each condo provided $100,000 of its sales price towards stadium construction, that’s still only $83.7 million. Chances are that asking for more than that would either make the units not salable or eat significantly into the developer’s profits.

If the Raiders stadium proves too costly, the A’s could easily slot right in with a much less expensive stadium option that has a much smaller funding gap, say $200-300 million. Plus with only one stadium there instead of two, there would be additional land to develop or reassign as needed. Wolff’s in a good position to wait and see how the market analyses work out for them and the Raiders. Numerous outcomes could be put forth:

  • Coliseum City works financially for all three teams
  • Coliseum City works financially for two of the three teams
  • Coliseum City works financially for only the Raiders
  • Coliseum City works financially for only the A’s
  • Coliseum City doesn’t work financially for any team

I’m sure there are specific benchmarks for each of these outcomes, but we’ll have to wait until April to understand what those are. The Warriors component is even fuzzier than for the A’s and Raiders, since the replacement would be built in Area B of Coliseum City across I-880. To date the arena has not been part of the identified planning phases.

For now, Wolff gets to provide the most tacit support to Coliseum City, while letting the chips fall where they may. If the plan doesn’t pencil out, which I suspect he believes, he’ll have the numbers to prove himself right and to shut his critics up. If it does work out, he’ll be in a good bargaining position to ask for some piece of the pie. BayIG is being asked to get teams to sign on by no later than next summer, so we’ll see if this has legs.

Of course, the last 1,100 words are only believable if you endorse the idea that Wolff is actually considering Oakland in any way. If not, you’ve just wasted a few minutes of your time. Get back to your building your Wolff effigies and altars.

12.16.13
by

Initial renderings show Howard Terminal ballpark outside of BCDC jurisdiction

Howard Terminal ballpark backers are looking for solutions to get past the BCDC. In their case the solution appears to be to build the ballpark outside the area the BCDC regulates. Say, what is the BCDC’s jurisdiction, anyway? Glad you asked. From the website (emphasis mine):

The open water, marshes and mudflats of greater San Francisco Bay, including Suisun, San Pablo, Honker, Richardson, San Rafael, San Leandro and Grizzly Bays and the Carquinez Strait.

The first 100 feet inland from the shoreline around San Francisco Bay.

The portion of the Suisun Marsh-including levees, waterways, marshes and grasslands- below the ten-foot contour line.

Portions of most creeks, rivers, sloughs and other tributaries that flow into San Francisco Bay.

Salt ponds, duck hunting preserves, game refuges and other managed wetlands that have been diked off from San Francisco Bay.

At 50 acres in size, Howard Terminal is a large enough property that plans can be drawn up to move structures around so that they can avoid the BCDC. Ah, but it isn’t quite that simple. Part of Howard Terminal is a pier built over the estuary, so that area is considered tidelands and is in all likelihood within the BCDC’s jurisdiction. Waterfront Action has a map showing where various Tidelands Trust lands lie along the Oakland Estuary.

tidelands_downtown

Map of Tidelands Trust areas where development is highly restricted (note Victory Court’s location in upper right)

If you look at the Howard Terminal section, the Tidelands extend inland past the cranes, as much as 300 feet. Add another 100 feet to cover the BCDC boundary and you have the defined area that escapes the jurisdiction. That means that there could be as much as 400 feet from the water’s edge to the outer wall of the ballpark, the length of home plate to center field at the Coliseum (sorry, no splash hits folks). The BCDC could rule that the shoreline starts at the water’s edge, which would allow the ballpark to be built closer to the water. It will probably take the BCDC and the State Lands Commission to sort all of that out. The recently closed RFP for Howard Terminal explains this further:

Tidelands Trust Compliance

Howard Terminal is currently encumbered by the Tidelands Trust. Uses of the property are therefore generally limited to water oriented commerce, navigation, fisheries, and regional or state-wide recreational uses. Approval from the State Lands Commission would be required for any uses of the property that are not Tidelands Trust compliant. Many non-maritime activities are not considered Trust compliant uses and thus may require lengthy negotiations with the State Lands Commission, and potential legislation, before the Port could proceed with such non-Trust uses for the property.

Howard Terminal ballpark on west end of property

Whatever the final ruling is, filling in that empty area would be open space, which partly explains the presence of the cranes. The crane supports currently at Howard Terminal are nearly 120 feet deep from front to back. A promenade and open space fills that area, which is a good idea (you basically can’t get anything big developed in coastal California without providing open space these days).

Entirety of Howard Terminal with Downtown Oakland in background

A side effect of this placement is that the ballpark would actually be closer to the West Oakland BART station than the 12th Street Downtown Oakland station by a few hundred feet (4,800 vs. 5,100). In either case it’s a pretty lengthy distance and would be best bridged by shuttles.

Despite the placement of the ballpark in hopes of avoiding the BCDC, work done on the waterfront parts of the site would fall under the commission’s sway, even the conversion to open space. That’s because there is a land use covenant in place that is also highly restrictive, preventing all manner of structures from being built there without significant cleanup plans.

Now let’s look at one more picture. It’s an old one from the 2001 HOK study – the one that had Howard Terminal finishing among the worst with $177.5 million in needed infrastructure and other costs.

hok-2001-ht

2001 HOK study rendering of A’s ballpark at Howard Terminal

Note the differences between this image and the newer ones. In the newer renderings the ballpark is on the western half. In the older vision the ballpark’s on the eastern half. There’s also a convention center, hotel, and 1,900-space parking garage here. Mayor Quan referred to Howard Terminal as being zoned for a convention center, but was that an actual result of this study or similar efforts? I’ve seen no record to indicate this happened. In addition the 2001 HOK plan shows the original shoreline as reclaimed, but with a promenade extending out as connected piers, presumably to acknowledge the site’s 100 years as an operating port facility.

With these renderings, there are a few questions to carry forward.

  • It’s not at all clear how much control the BCDC has over the site. Where is the true BCDC jurisdictional boundary?
  • Given the site’s use as a port, how much say will the State Lands Commission have in lieu of the BCDC?
  • How much do the land use covenant’s restrictions affect the cost to build here?
  • Will a full cleanup be required, or can Oakland get away with limited cleanup if only certain uses are realized?

I’m sure there will be more questions to come. Those can be answered with a feasibility study and an environmental impact report.

12.14.13
by

Quan touts regulatory-sidestepping Howard Terminal vision

UPDATE 12/16 12:00 AM – Matier and Ross finally have their column on Howard Terminal. The retention of the shipping cranes is a nice touch, even though they would be largely ornamental. Judging from the rendering, the right field fence would be 150-200 feet from the waterfront.

Howard Terminal ballpark on west end of property

What’s missing? Any explanation about how the City/Port could get around the BCDC and CEQA.

—–

Original post:

There are some days when you feel your work is validated. This is one of those days.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan appeared at Save Oakland Sports’ year-end event last night, talking up a plan that, according to East Bay Citizen, “allows it to skip some regulatory hurdles.” Quan repeated something we heard from the summer, that Howard Terminal was zoned for a convention center. The only citations I can find from the City’s archives mention a possibility of a convention center from the 50’s, well before CEQA and modern land use initiatives. Currently Howard Terminal is zoned for industrial and maritime uses. While a zoning change is normally a simple City Council resolution item, the fact is that the Port itself identified numerous obstacles to making that change, namely the issue of maintaining maritime use at the site.

To that end, the Port of Oakland received three proposals for ongoing Port use at Howard Terminal. Two involve local concerns: Phil Tagami’s plan to use the site temporarily for either bulk or break bulk cargo, and Schnitzer Steel’s expansion plan, which is not explicitly a maritime use. The third plan comes from Kentucky coal mining company Bowie Resources Partners, in partnership with Dutch oil shipper Trafigura. Bowie’s an interesting proposition, as they export a great deal of their coal from the Port of Stockton. According to this press release, Bowie was in talks with the Port of Richmond to create a secondary shipping facility. Howard Terminal could work in a similar manner, though the precautions associated with shipping coal are enough to give one pause. Nevertheless the Port has to consider these options, since they need to figure out a way to offset the $10 million per year the Port will lose by idling Howard Terminal. A decision on how Howard Terminal will operate in the future is expected in the spring.

Ballpark proponents seem to be willing to play the long game here, with site readiness not coming for perhaps several years. Any continued use of the site for shipping purposes would potentially delay that readiness, unless a plan was put into place that allowed a ballpark to be built on a shut-down part of the site. At 50 acres in total size, there should be ways to make this happen. Developing the entire 50 acres would be another story.

Quan said that the to-be-released plan would be able to sidestep various environmental requirements, including some from the BCDC. However, that contradicts the Port’s own language from its Howard Terminal RFP:

11. Land Use and Permitting

In addition to any environmental regulatory oversight resulting from contamination, the Site is subject to the Tidelands Trust, consistent with the grants affecting the property with oversight from the California State Lands Commission. The San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (“BCDC”) designates the Site for Port Priority Use. The Site is located within the City of Oakland, and is designated as General Industrial/Transportation Uses in the City of Oakland General Plan. Any proposed change of use or any proposed construction, maintenance or new development at the Site will be subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The BCDC’s role has become more well known, as the fate of the Warriors’ Piers 30/32 arena plan is in the BCDC’s hands. However, note that the loudest clamoring over environmental impacts is not coming from the BCDC itself. Instead the noise is coming from opponents of the arena, who are using rules set by the BCDC and CEQA to invite greater scrutiny over the arena. While Howard Terminal lacks the picturesque quality of SF’s Embarcadero, it is still subject to BCDC regulations and should invite scrutiny on its own. The southeast corner of Howard Terminal is built on piers over water, just like Piers 30/32. Exactly what measures the City could use to get around CEQA and the BCDC are a complete mystery. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing it out.

The City had another waterfront site at one time in Victory Court. It was sold as a transit-friendly, partly publicly-owned, easy-to-acquire site that should cost less than $22 million to acquire. In keeping with that estimate, Oakland and East Bay business interests were willing to pledge up to $100 million to acquire and prep the site. At the time Mayor Quan touted Victory Court more vociferously than she is Howard Terminal now. Exploding costs ($240 million final site cost estimate) and the demise of redevelopment (downplayed as a factor as it was happening) effectively mothballed Victory Court, with no real public statement made by the City about what happened.

Whether you want to read this site as objective, slanted, or both, it’s important to get tough questions raised. That’s why I feel good about what Quan said yesterday. It’s proof that we’re doing our job well, that we’re asking the right questions, questions that need legitimate answers. Without this blog asking the tough questions, who will? East Bay media appears to be fine playing cheerleader. The City has been working behind the scenes to get site control, while not getting an EIR or even a feasibility study for Howard Terminal going.

So in the spirit of disclosure, let’s see the plan, Madam Mayor. Given her track record, the real situation is not expected to be as rosy as she often paints it. Matier and Ross supposedly got an exclusive on the plan, so we may see some real information as early as tomorrow.

12.10.13
by

The false horse race narrative

Mark Purdy has a new column. It’s designed to get San Jose supporters to buck up, keep a stiff upper lip, hang in there, what have you. It has a bunch of quotes from the likes of San Jose Councilman Sam Liccardo and A’s managing partner Lew Wolff that trash Oakland. It’s a counterpoint to Marcus Thompson’s column from over the weekend that was meant to breathe life into the Keep-the-A’s-In-Oakland movement. Purdy laid odds, a generally weak tool to use for complicated situations like this:

Odds of the 2020 Athletics playing in a new Oakland ballpark: 25-1.

Odds of the 2020 Athletics playing in a new San Jose ballpark: 10-1.

Odds of the 2020 Athletics playing at AT&T Park: 50-1.

Odds of the 2020 Athletics playing in another part of the country: 80-1.

Odds of the 2020 Athletics still playing at decaying O.co Coliseum, with everybody still arguing about where they should move: 2-1.

Perhaps Steven Tavares from the East Bay Citizen spent too much time at Oakland’s City Council session tonight (the A’s lease extension was approved, BTW), but something in Purdy’s column flipped Tavares’s wig, leading to a litany of entertaining, rant-filled tweets. Among them:

 

 

You see, here is the problem. You have one guy laying odds, and another characterizing one party as in the lead. The brutal truth is that this type of narrative is completely useless. It’s bullshit. If you scratch the surface even a little bit, any oversimplified telling like this crumbles to dust. And there’s a simple reason for this.

There is no race.

We know what a horse race looks like. The showcasing of the Expos when MLB bought the team out from Jeff Loria is proof of that. Las Vegas and Portland were used in the process, and DC was taken. We’re not seeing that here. That’s not to say that MLB and either Commissioner Selig or his replacement will end up choosing between Oakland and San Jose at some point. They well could. The problem is that MLB doesn’t like either city’s plan, so it’s not going to choose either city. You can’t have a race when the judge thinks the two competitors don’t qualify. MLB would rather intervene only when it has to, say, when the A’s lease extension talks hit a snag. Then it can breath a sigh of relief, stretch it out a couple more years, and hope that a solution materializes.

Guess what? Oakland and San Jose pols are hoping for the same thing! Oakland is hoping that Wolff gives up and MLB kills off San Jose, so that they’re the only horse left. San Jose hopes that Oakland exposes itself as incapable of getting a deal done, forcing MLB to deal with San Jose. (At least San Jose is trying to force the issue with the lawsuit, but that’s a long shot at best.) None of these rather similar hope-based strategies are predicated on getting a site and pulling together financing.

Unless San Jose and Oakland provide something MLB wants ($$$ or an equivalent), MLB doesn’t have to listen to either one. When MLB negotiated the Coliseum extension, it didn’t set a deadline for Oakland to get a deal done. Selig didn’t tell Oakland to get Howard Terminal ready ASAP – hell, he didn’t do that for Victory Court either. If any substantive talks for a new ballpark are going to take place, MLB will have to be at the table brokering everything because of the intense mutual distrust between Oakland and A’s ownership. That’s exactly what happened in Miami (hello again, Loria!), and we know how badly that turned out. Yet do you hear about something like that happening in Oakland? Nope.

Now maybe MLB’s hand will be forced if Oakland decides to go with the Raiders’ preference of demolishing the Coliseum and leaving the A’s with no obvious place to play. Then it could support Wolff and say to Oakland, you made your choice. It could explore Howard Terminal further, though I suspect it has plenty of information on which to base a decision by now. It could go to San Jose, which would mean it would have to untangle the mess made by the Giants – who I hear have spent eight figures on legal work trying to derail the A’s and San Jose so far. As far as the A’s are concerned, MLB probably views them as an unstable Third World country on another continent. It would rather not get involved.

So until MLB actually decides to give a damn, let’s dispense with this horse race narrative. It’s not helpful and it only provides false hope to fans on either side of the divide, or even those who don’t particular care for a city and just want to keep the team in the Bay Area. It’s not fair to fans, and it’s a total distraction.

12.10.13
by

Cactus League Grid Schedule

Today I booked my flights to/from Phoenix for Spring Training. I’ll be there March 13-16, taking in at least 4 games. For your convenience, I’ve constructed a Cactus League grid, similar to the regular season grid that I construct every fall. The grid is laid out from Northwest to Southeast in the metropolitan area, so you can see which games are close to other games. Games typically start at 1 PM everyday, though some teams schedule 7 PM night games on occasion (noted in bold). The grid is also split into western and eastern sections relative to Downtown Phoenix. Nine teams cover five ballparks in the more spread out west, whereas six teams hold five ballparks in the more compact east.

Cactus League ballpark map

  • Camelback Ranch: White Sox & Dodgers
  • Goodyear: Reds & Indians
  • Cubs Park: Cubs
  • Maryvale: Brewers
  • Peoria: Mariners & Padres
  • Phoenix Muni: A’s
  • Scottsdale: Giants
  • Surprise: Royals & Rangers
  • Tempe Diablo: Angels
  • Salt River Fields @ Talking Stick: Diamondbacks & Rockies

And now the schedule (click image for PDF):

cactus_league_2014

If you plan to be in the Valley of the Sun around the same time I am, let me know and we can plan something. It’s the last hurrah at Muni, so get out there and enjoy  it if you can.

12.08.13
by

The Proposal

The last public statement Bud Selig made on the A’s-San Jose lawsuit was at the beginning of the World Series, when he held court for the assembled national media. The session included the obligatory question on the A’s situation, which included Selig’s reflection on the lawsuit because Judge Ronald Whyte had recently thrown out many of San Jose’s claims in the case. Here’s what MLB.com’s Paul Hagen wrote then:

A judge, ruling on a lawsuit filed by San Jose against Major League Baseball, recently upheld MLB’s right to determine when and where franchises may relocate, but left open the question of whether the city of San Jose may sue for damages. Selig said, however, that this doesn’t impact the timetable for a resolution.

“I wouldn’t say so. We were very pleased with the decision, obviously. But nothing has changed,” Selig said. “We’re working on details. Look, I know everybody says it’s taking so long. But the more our group has gotten into it, the more complex it is. If people really understood all the complexities, they would understand. But it’s a situation that needs to be dealt with.”

Selig was asked if the complexity was the San Francisco Giants’ claim that they have territorial rights to San Jose.

“The complexities are all the parties,” Selig replied.

A month earlier, Selig went on John Feinstein’s radio show to complain about the A’s and Rays’ stadium problems. At the time Selig referred to the state of the Coliseum.

“It’s a pit,” Selig said. “It reminds me of old County Stadium and Shea Stadium. We need to deal with that. I’ve had a committee working on it for two or three years, and there’s no question we’re going to have to solve that problem.”

But hasn’t the committee been working on it for a long time? What’s the hold-up?

“We have, John, but I’ll tell you it’s far more complex,” Selig said. “Look, you have one team that wants to move and the other team doesn’t want them to move, and it’s a very complicated situation. Before I leave, I’m satisfied we’ll work out something.”

Now let’s pivot to the most recent revelation of a letter “formally” rejecting the A’s proposal to San Jose. MLB didn’t release the letter with the recent court filing, so we’re left to guess as to what the letter truly contained. The filing characterizes the letter as a final decision on the A’s move request. Since the news broke, several reporters have gotten unnamed sources to characterize the letter as a rejection of the proposal as written, but not a rejection of San Jose. Selig’s statements above – made three and four months after the rejected proposal letter – don’t sound like any decision, final or not, has been made.

Since we know nothing about the proposal, we can only speculate on its terms. Some of the discussion on this blog has been about the need for a greater public contribution. That may be the case, but I suspect that MLB wouldn’t focus on stadium deal terms that far afield. There’s always the matter of negotiation with between the team and the city when it comes time to write a DDA. Instead, I’m certain that the issue boils down to the overarching issue at play: territorial rights and compensation.

From the start of the San Jose talk in 2009, the Giants have never publicly stated a price. Lew Wolff has joked that he’d prefer to pay the same amount the Giants paid for Santa Clara County in 1992, which was $0. Since then, Wolff has hinted that he’d be willing to pay compensation based on actual demonstrable losses suffered by the Giants, not a big lump sum payment. Given that the Giants sell out regularly, demonstrable losses could be difficult to prove. If anything, MLB wants a serious compromise between the two sides, and isn’t satisfied with Wolff’s definition of compensation. While Wolff may be loathe to pay anything to the nemesis Giants, ponying up something is probably the only way to get down to San Jose.

At the same time, the proposal has to work within other written (and unwritten) rules MLB has set forth. Consider these additional issues at stake:

  1. How much additional debt does the club have to take on to make the ballpark happen?
  2. If the land encumbrance issues at the Diridon site can’t be resolved, what backup sites are being considered?
  3. Does the proposal involve the A’s staying on revenue sharing for some period of time?
  4. Are the A’s sticking to the small, 32,000-seat concept, or will they move to 36,000 or higher?

While all of these are legitimate concerns, I still think that it all comes down to the compensation issue. In February, Bill Shaikin reported that MLB gave the A’s temporary guidelines in order for Selig and the owners to approve the move. If there were guidelines given to the A’s, then it’s up to Wolff and John Fisher to comply with those guidelines. Otherwise they’re just spinning their wheels. Shaikin wrote then that compensation was not “among the list of matters for the A’s to resolve.” Sure, as long as the A’s are in compliance. If they proposed a different form of compensation or different terms, suddenly that issue is front and center.

If MLB convinces Judge Whyte to grant a stay in the discovery phase of the lawsuit, we probably won’t find out the substance of that letter or proposal. That would be, to put it mildly, unfortunate.

12.07.13
by

Lawsuit update: MLB says Selig rejected A’s-to-San Jose move a day before lawsuit was filed

Michael McCann’s Sports Law Blog, which has been keeping track of the legal maneuverings in the MLB-vs.-San Jose case, has uncovered a bit of a bombshell (hat tip Nathaniel Grow). From the most recent filing (defendant’s section):

In fact, MLB denied the Athletics’ relocation request on June 17, 2013, one day before this lawsuit was filed. On that date, Commissioner Selig formally notified the Athletics’ ownership that he was not satisfied with the club’s relocation proposal. The sole basis of Plaintiffs’ only claims that remain after the MTD Order—the purported failure of MLB to render a decision within the initial two-year term of the Option Agreement—is therefore meritless.

MLB is arguing that the land option agreement the A’s and San Jose entered into in late 2011 is invalid, making the case moot. To back up its claim, MLB cites this heretofore (and still) unseen letter, the ongoing Stand for San Jose-vs.-City of San Jose lawsuit, and the lack of a public vote. To be clear, that last part is because Commissioner Bud Selig discouraged a vote way back in 2010 (which to this day I consider a strategic error on San Jose’s part). MLB wants to keep the letter confidential and doesn’t want to show it unless the plaintiffs agree to confidentiality.

Of course, that’s the opposite of what San Jose wants, because they’re pushing for complete discovery. From their filing:

In fact, Defendants’ sections of this CMC Statement are filled with Assertions of fact. This Court should order immediate commencement of discovery so that these “facts” (and others) surrounding the Athletics proposed move to San Jose and their reasons for entering into (and then not exercising) the Option Agreement may be explored.

MLB is fighting hard to avoid any degree of discovery.

Timing is the issue here. MLB argues that Selig sent the letter 19 months after the option agreement was signed, and that 19 months was reasonable timing for a decision, even though MLB started formally addressing the ballpark issue and San Jose two years earlier. Did San Jose file the lawsuit upon receiving the letter, or did MLB send the letter preemptively, knowing that the lawsuit was coming? I knew the lawsuit was coming the week it was filed, and I figure MLB did too. Addtionally, what other communications could be brought up that could contradict the letter?

Grow notes:

It is of course possible, and perhaps even likely, that MLB would reconsider the move [to San Jose] in the future.

While we’re left to wildly speculate on everything, let’s consider the idea that MLB doesn’t like San Jose’s proposed contribution of land-and-infrastructure, and wants more than that to seal the deal. And understand that all the activity we’re seeing is happening because of the lawsuit. Everything should be understood within the context of the lawsuit. For better or worse, that’s where we are. I won’t be in town next Friday for the hearing, but I’m sure it’ll be juicy.