Category Archives: Athletics

12.02.10
by

The chattering class takes their turn

In the Trib, Gary Peterson asks for Bud Selig to show some leadership and settle this once and for all, even though he thinks Selig pretty much already has this figured out. Craig Calcaterra feels the same way.

But our inner realist understands that Selig isn’t nearly that disengaged. It’s entirely possible, bordering on likely, that the great consensus builder knows how MLB owners feel about the Giants’ territorial rights, has a pretty good idea what the outcome of this conflict is going to be, understands why it has to be that way, and has figured out a way to get from here to there. The rest is just time-consuming mechanics — glad-handing, horse trading, making the money work.

Meanwhile, Mark Purdy is pissed and has his talking points in order. So does the Merc’s editorial board.

Keep the comments thread civil, everyone.

12.02.10
by

This train business

I left the Planning Commission study session last night around 10. After walking three blocks to my car at the corner of 14th and Webster, I decided to drive by Victory Court. As I drove down Oak Street, I heard some bells ringing and was forced to stop for this:

Some Victory Court supporters, in an effort to minimize the impact of trains, are saying things like, “Trains only run 15 mph along the Embarcadero” or “Seattle built a stadium next to train tracks” without really going into why or how these situations came about. Frankly, it shows a reckless kind of ignorance that, thankfully, the California Public Utilities Commission and rail operators Union Pacific and Amtrak cannot abide by. Let’s go into the statements.

  • “Trains only run 15 mph along the Embarcadero” – You bet they do. And for good reason. If a freight train were running 55 mph along the Embarcadero, it would take over a mile to stop, or the distance from the Jack London Aquatic Center to Howard Terminal. If you’re going to mix trains at grade with multiple vehicular and and pedestrian cross, those trains need to go slow. Even then, it’s dangerous, as a freight train going 15 mph would take over 1,000 feet to stop, which happens to be the length of the passenger platform and the Amtrak JLS station. Note: You may remember back to the summer, when during my midwest ballpark trip, an Amtrak train on which I was traveling from St. Louis to Chicago hit a car, delaying the train for well over an hour and putting the driver of the car close to death.
  • “They have those trains that run by AT&T Park” – Electrified light rail trains, like the ones in SF and the South Bay, are far lighter and easier to start and stop than their diesel cousins. Often, they travel very slowly along shared streets just to be safer and more cautious. They’re built to operate in an urban environment. Diesel freight (UPRR) and commuter/intercity (Amtrak) trains absolutely are not. The fact that trains run through JLS at grade, sharing the road with cars and people, is an anomaly that should not be duplicated. The only other local example of such a train is the Roaring Camp/Big Trees Railroad, a tourist excursion train that runs between the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and Felton. Coming in and out of the boardwalk, the train runs at a crawl.
  • “Seattle built a stadium next to train tracks” – Actually, they built two, Safeco Field and Qwest Field. But if you walk around the back of Safeco where the roof is stored, you’ll notice that you’re overlooking the tracks. All but one of the pedestrian and vehicular rail crossings around both stadia are overpasses with full grade separation, and the one exception was obviated this year when a new overpass was completed. If trains and cars don’t share space, you can’t have accidents. Grade separation isn’t really possible at JLS as the construction would be extremely expensive and disruptive, so other measures have to be taken to ensure safety. To that end, it’s possible that one or more pedestrian bridges will be required. Already there are three such bridges in place, connecting the waterfront to the JLS parking garage and Amtrak station, plus the ferry terminal’s connection to Yoshi’s. Through the EIR’s circulation analysis, it may be found that these bridges, with some modification, will be adequate for whatever the new pedestrian load is. Then again, maybe not. Even if a new overpass is needed, it will probably be cheaper than a lawsuit emanating from the negligence associated with not addressing the issue.

Still not convinced? Consider this: let’s say the ballpark pulls in 2.5 million fans a year. It’s reasonable to think that 20% of them (500,000) will be going to JLS to eat, drink, or shop before and after games. The popularity of the ballpark will create a snowball effect, making it more likely that even more retail establishments and restaurants call JLS home, further driving up traffic – which is what Oaklanders want. It’s possible that 1 million new visitors will come to JLS annually. To try to cut corners on safety (occasional police presence as the main mitigation, for instance) just so that the project is more affordable or “feasible” is downright foolish.

As for cars, there isn’t much that can be done. I suppose a vehicular/pedestrian overpass from Oak Street to First Street is possible, but the limited amount of car traffic may not warrant the cost.

After the Draft EIR and its findings are made public, the PUC, Amtrak, and UPRR will have a chance to formally comment on the project. They may already have submitted comments based on the project as it stands now. In the PUC’s case, it has the power to dictate how the EIR progresses. It’s incumbent upon the project applicants – in this case, the City of Oakland – to do their level best to make sure the EIR is complete and mitigation measures are properly in place. If not, it’s only going to delay groundbreaking and construction. Given MLB’s 2015 deadline, that’s not something on which Oakland or Keep-the-A’s-in-Oakland types should be gambling.

12.01.10
by

Oakland Planning Commission Session 12/1

I can’t be more glad to be late. Which is saying something, considering I’m habitually late.

The commission hasn’t started to address item #5 on the agenda, which is the ballpark proposal. The main hall is packed, it’s standing room only in the overflow room, and dozens are milling around in the foyer and hallways. I’d say it’s a good turnout so far. They’re about to take a break before item #5.

7:59 PM – Eric Angstadt is explaining the CEQA process now. Emphasizes that this study session is not about whether or not this is a good project, it’s only to get input that’s germane to CEQA. If you need a primer on the process, read this. I imagine that regularly having to explain the process can be a bit tiresome.

8:07 PM – Doug Boxer is laying down the ground rules. Explains that the fire marshal is upset. Gets a show of hands as to who approves, vast majority approve. Asks for signs to be taken down, people in hallways to go to the overflow room. So far there are 26 comment cards.

8:11 – Gary Knecht (thanks V) asks for current traffic counts and perhaps a new economic impact report, in reference to redevelopment funds. Also just ran into Nina Thorsen, who got booted from the main room.

8:13 – Max Allstadt wants to bridge the no man’s land that is the Nimitz.

8:15 – Mike Johnson has been an A’s fan since he was four. Says that the project has to be looked at in terms of business outreach. Ballpark is a good idea. It would tear him apart if the A’s left.

8:24 – The speakers are coming every two minutes and I can’t keep up, but I’ll point out speakers of note. Mike Davie (linusalf) is coming up.

8:27 – Ben Fernandez owns the Portobello condos near the site and enthusiastically supports the project. Refers to China Basin as a good example.

8:29 – linusalf wants to include impact of non-car transportation, especially bike travel and routes.

8:30 – BTW if anyone is looking, I’m behind the TV in the overflow room (ducks). Bryan Grunwald is coming up.

8:34 – Grunwald is up after Boxer’s jokey intro. Is explaining 980 Park’s site costs as lower than Victory Court. Talks up social justice aspect. The crowd here is not receptive. Asks for 980 Park to be considered along dual track with Victory Court.

Note: There’s some vague talk about costs. We’ll try to estimate those as well as we can but any numbers coming from anyone outside the City or landowners are uneducated.

8:43 – Bobby Tselentis is taking his two minutes. Wants for JLS to come back, including the Spaghetti Factory (ditto). Gets huge applause in this room.

8:45 – Rep from Alameda County Labor Council speaks. Wants quality analysis of jobs. In ACLC’s study, many Oakland families relied upon the so-called low paying seasonal jobs A’s a major source of income and benefits. Ballpark is good, but there are existing businesses that will be affected, and the protection of existing businesses and industrial land is important.

8:49 – Oak Center head (missed name) is up. Asks what happened to the other sites in the study. Supports 980 Park site.

8:52 – Ben Delaney of Jack London Neighborhood Association speaks. Also asks what what happened to the other sites. Wants to know what mitigation will be put in places for affected residents. Wants to know what measures will be made to have jobs for Oakland first. Says that Lake Merritt BART is suboptimal, freeway infrastructure is inadequate. Thanks the City for not choosing JLS North/West, where his house would be in left field.

9:03 – One speaker cites two different estimates for Caltrans to act on such a project – 18 months or 2-3 years. Given the time crunch, it’ll be necessary to get all of the various agencies on the same page. Another speaker has grave concerns about limited parking, especially because of the Laney College uses (day/night classes, flea market). Brings up eminent domain.

Several speakers, including some representing Chinatown, are asking for a thorough health study.

9:14 – KTRB’s Rick Tittle is asking if Oakland is a big league town as this is a watershed moment. “Are we going to sit around and let another city steal our team away?” Tittle also pleaded for the City not to get bogged down in the details (I’m paraphrasing). But that’s what CEQA is. It’s set up to be legal protection for the little guy, for the disenfranchised. You want to rush through something, move to another state. Or China.

9:15 – Ethan Pintard is up. Like the site but has concerns about a parking nightmare. Biggest concern is for prosperous established businesses at the site. Proposes the Wood Street development (West Oakland) as a possible site, because existing plans aren’t happening soon. 39 acres of adjacent land with willing sellers. Virtually all of the land is vacant. Would like to see the old 16th Street station as part of the development.

9:20 – Jorge Leon is up. He’s endearing, but he isn’t really helping. He’s the “Joe the Plumber” of the Oakland-only movement.

9:25 – The always interesting Sanjiv Handa gives a political retrospective. Thinks the Port of Oakland would be on their knees begging for the Victory Court ballpark plan in light of the failures at JLS (which is changing hands again). Mentions the cautionary tale of the Marine World almost moving to a site near the Coliseum, then bolting for Vallejo.

9:33 – Last speaker asks what will happen if Oakland loses the A’s. Will that be covered somehow? Is cautiously optimistic, hopes Lew Wolff is watching and sees the support.

Speakers are finished, commissioners are taking their turns. People are starting to file out. There’s an older, familiar looking man in a three-piece suit here. I can’t quite place him. EIR consultant, perhaps?

BTW, there are no exhibits or even a presentation. That’s for later.

11:32 – Just got home and the comment board is already lively. Thanks to Nina, David and LeAndre, all of whom I had brief chats with. The crowd was great and I didn’t see any pitchforks or torches. Plenty of different interests were represented, which gave the session a good sense of balance.

Quick note – The site may be down for a bit Thursday for some maintenance. Hopefully not for long.

And from the sometimes you just can’t win department – the same night when Oakland can puff out its chest a bit with this first study session, what’s on the front page of CNN.com? A video report on child prostitution along International Blvd.

12:25 AM – There were some reports earlier today that got comments from Ignacio De La Fuente. IDLF wants MLB to commit to Oakland before the City pays for the EIR and related study work. MLB may well be willing to pay for the EIR, but he probably won’t get his wish. More on that in a later post.

Also, just noticed this from KTVU’s report:

That looks somewhat familiar…

11.29.10
by

Cyber Monday Reality Check

Update 11/30 10:57 AM – There was an article at the Merc website about a San Jose special election in March being unlikely, but it was pulled. It may have to do with the deadline to place an initiative on the ballot for the special election. The article will run in tomorrow’s edition, so we should see it later today/tonight.

Sorry, no great deals for consumers here. There’s still plenty of stuff to read before Wednesday’s big rally planning commission session, so let’s let ‘er rip.

At A Better Oakland, V Smoothe has, as usual, a very realistic and substantial take on where Oakland is in the process. Thankfully, she references some of the work we’ve done here on site reviews (Howard Terminal/JLS West/Victory Court), and states her preference for Chris Kidd’s Jingletown site concept. More to the point, she defines what the purpose of the session is:

So basically, this is when you have an opportunity to go say what you think should be studied in the EIR. Like, for example, you could go and say, “I think it’s really important that the EIR examines pedestrian and vehicle safety impacts at the railroad crossing at the intersections of Embarcadero and Broadway, Franklin, and Webster” and that would be appropriate. If you went and said instead “I think Lew Wolff is an asshole and the A’s should stay in Oakland,” that would not be appropriate. Or productive. You don’t have to go to the hearing to have input on what gets studied — as I mentioned above, you are also encouraged to submit your comments in writing.

Just as important, she takes just two paragraphs to nail the frustration many fans have with the City of Oakland and Oakland-only boosters.

…And the attitude from so many City officials and A’s-in-Oakland boosters that we should keep the team because we just deserve them rather than because we have an actual plan for how we’re going to accomplish that infuriates me.

So it isn’t that I’m anti-Oakland so much as I’m anti-whining. And running around bitching about how unfairly Lew Wolff treats Oakland while doing absolutely nothing to further the goal of offering a viable stadium site is whining. While Oakland sat around feeling all put upon and pouting about being rejected and claiming there are tons of great ballpark locations all over Oakland if your ignore all the feasibility problems with them, San Jose, without any guarantee or even real reason to believe they could land the team, identified a site, bought up most of the land, certified an EIR, and built up significant community support for their proposal. That’s what being serious looks like.

Couldn’t have written it better, or more credibly, myself.

Over in St. Pete, Tropicana Dome has proven to be more costly for the city than expected, at $7.3 million per including operational costs and debt service. Rising insurance premiums and increased traffic control expenses are partly to blame. Besides those already sobering figures, the Tampa Tribune also asked whether or not the region can actually support the Rays in the long run. As studied nearly two years ago, the population of the Tampa Bay Area is not particularly large, and the location of the Tropicana Dome is nearly the worst within the region for attracting the greater populace. The biggest hurdle, however, could be getting a privately financed facility built in a region bereft of corporate interests:

The Tribune studied the Fortune 1000 list of major U.S. corporations and found only six companies on it based in the Bay area. Miami only had six, too. The median number of headquarters companies in a major-league market was 20.

Sounds familiar.

If you’re interested in the subject matter, there’s an article in the Chicago Tribune about the company that is converting Wrigley Field back from football to baseball. The very same field that, if the Ricketts family is allowed, would be torn up to build underground clubhouses for both home and visiting teams in left and right field, respectively.

Apparently the Marlins are trying to color coordinate the seats in their half-built, future ballpark with sponsor brands. Hmmm…

11.26.10
by

Caveat citizen

A pithy piece on stadia and politics comes this week from an unusual place: a law firm. Attorneys Christopher Bakes, Scott Anders, and Jeremy Vermilyea of West Coast firm Bullivant Houser Bailey PC penned a succinct rebuttal (on Lexology) to a recent Wall Street Journal article on how municipalities are more averse to publicly financing stadia than before.

Bakes, a lawyer for the firm’s Sacramento office and an avowed Giants fan, represented the City of San Francisco in 1992 when the team threatened to move to Tampa, which gives him a pretty unique perspective on how stadium deals work. In his and his colleagues’ view, the problem for most stadium initiatives is not so much public financing as much as proper education of the public. That might be better termed “selling” the concept, in any case it’s part of the process. Here’s how they explain it:

Why stadium and ballpark initiatives fail. The key point missed by The Wall Street Journal is why so many stadium proposals became — and continue to become — problematic in the first place. It has far less to do with public funding than it does with good governance and public engagement, or (more likely) the lack of public engagement. This is because despite repeated failures at the ballot box and elsewhere, public officials and team owners almost never correctly interpret what is actually going on.

Voters don’t reject great ideas, they reject great ideas that aren’t carefully explained to them. When first proposed, ballpark proponents rarely list as a first priority the need to educate the public on why a ballpark is beneficial. It is as if the good public officials of Seattle (or San Diego, or Pittsburgh, or Minnesota) didn’t know about any of the troubles in Baltimore (or San Francisco, or Philadelphia, or Milwaukee), and simply moved along as if their new ballpark was the only one that had ever been conceived anywhere in America.

Later in the piece, the Giants and 49ers efforts are lauded for their outreach efforts with the public. It’s noted that the Giants’ plan, from conception to opening, took eight years (1992 to 2000). The 49ers’ stadium is on a similar path, with initial work dating back to 2007 and a likely opening in 2015. In San Jose, the process started in 2005 and an opening isn’t likely until at least 2014.

That brings me to Oakland. We’re about a year removed from Let’s Go Oakland’s unveiling of four sites, which apparently was done just to show that at least on the surface there was more than one. Any amount of scrutiny, which wasn’t done by local media, would’ve shown that there were really two sites, JLS West and Victory Court. Now that Victory Court is the chosen site, the clock will begin on December 1, when the first planning commission hearing for public comment is held. If the process holds true, a ballpark wouldn’t open until… 2018 or 2019.

If you think Oakland is somehow going to be able to shortcut the process, think again. The last large development project completed in Oakland was Uptown. Compare what Forest City originally pitched to what was eventually built:

Obviously, market conditions dictated how expansive the project became. Still, it’s likely that citizens will point to this as part of the City’s track record when it comes to executing on large projects. If MLB places faith in Oakland to get the ballpark plan done, it will do so knowing that the timeline will be quite long, through 2018 or later. And if proponents try to short circuit the process? There is no shortage of potential litigants ready to gum up the works.

Then again, as the article stated,

It has far less to do with public funding than it does with good governance and public engagement, or (more likely) the lack of public engagement.

The whole thing could get done more quickly if there’s a lack of public engagement. If that’s what happens, God help Oakland and A’s fans.

11.24.10
by

There’s trying, and then there’s trying

This Thanksgiving, we should all be thankful that, despite the often misplaced or ill-timed effort, many people have been trying to keep the A’s in the Bay Area. To illustrate this, I’ve put together a map showing pretty much all of the sites that have been considered for a ballpark over the last 15 years. Below the map is a brief history and the fate of each site.

bayarealocations

Competing sites:

  • # – Victory Court. Emerged as the preferred ballpark location by the City of Oakland after the unveiling of four sites by Let’s Go Oakland in December 2009. EIR process has begun, initial comment period open. Public hearing on December 1 to elicit public comments.
  • * – Diridon (South). Preferred San Jose site picked after two year deliberation process. EIR completed in 2009, a 3+ year process.

HOK East Bay study sites:

  • A – Howard Terminal. Waterfront site immediately west of Jack London Square. Eventually was leased by Matson to consolidate shipping operations.
  • B – Oak to Ninth. Waterfront site east of Jack London Square. Has development plans for 3100 homes, parkland, and commercial uses.
  • C – Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. Home of the current stadium, has had interest from different parties for a ballpark elsewhere within the complex. Both the Raiders and A’s have leases through 2013. The Coliseum Authority is working with the Raiders on a football-specific successor to the Coliseum immediately to the south of the existing stadium.
  • D – Laney College. Plans envisioned replacing the college’s athletic fields with a ballpark. Peralta Community College District was not interested in such a use.
  • E – Uptown. The preferred site from the study due to its downtown location and access to mass transit and parking infrastructure. Any chance of a ballpark was derailed when the A’s showed little interest and the site’s chief proponent was fired and a developer-friendly housing scheme was heavily promoted. An apartment complex is now on site.
  • F – Pleasanton. One of two southern Alameda County sites included in the study. Was undeveloped back then, is still undeveloped now.
  • G – Fremont. The other southern Alameda County choice, the site was north of the NUMMI (now Tesla Motors) site. The area would be reconsidered several years later for another shot at a ballpark, but NIMBY resistance helped kill it.

San Jose study sites:

  • I – FMC/Airport West. Old military vehicle plant was briefly considered thanks to central location within Santa Clara Valley. Was eliminated in favor of a more urban locale. Became the site of the future San Jose Earthquakes stadium.
  • II – Reed & Graham. An asphalt plant next to I-280. Eliminated early on due to infrastructure issues. Plant still in operation.
  • III – Del Monte Cannery. A single-owner site that was ready for redevelopment, just north of Reed & Graham. A developer showed interest in building condos on the site, which is eventually what happened.
  • IV – Berryessa Flea Market. Located on San Jose’s east side, its major advantages were its size, a single owner, and its location near a future BART station. Like the Del Monte Cannery, the site has plans for future residential development. Such work has not yet started and may not commence for several years.

A’s ownership promoted sites:

  • 1 – Coliseum South. Site pitched by Lew Wolff shortly after he was hired by Schott/Hofmann. Ownership agreed to pay 50% towards a study on the site, which included the HomeBase and Malibu lots. The Coliseum Authority balked. In 2010, the Authority bought the land with an eye towards a Raiders stadium and ancillary development plan.
  • 2 – Santa Clara. North of Great America, the site was also considered for a Santa Clara ballpark plan over a decade prior. In order to prevent a ballpark from being built, the City added a street through the property that gets very little vehicular use.
  • 3 – Coliseum North (High/66th). A broad redevelopment plan that would have bought 100 acres of industrial zoned land and changed the zoning to residential/commercial, with a ballpark as the centerpiece. Existing landowners balked at moving and Wolff/Fisher were not willing to pay much more than a nominal amount for the land, leading to the plan’s demise.
  • 4 – Pacific Commons. Took the Coliseum North redevelopment concept and moved it to Fremont, on Cisco/Catellus-owned light industrial (yet undeveloped) land. Plan died as the broader economy went into the tank in 2007.
  • 5 – Warm Springs. Rebirth of the original Fremont plan would’ve had the ballpark decoupled from the residential and commercial components. Area residents decried the location’s proximity to local homes and the lack of road infrastructure. The plan came and went quickly, which made the team look further south.

Have a good Thanksgiving, everyone.

11.24.10
by

Athletics After Dark Stadium Debate

We were contacted last week by Athletics After Dark to participate in a debate over the merits of keeping the A’s in Oakland vs. moving them to San Jose. On the pro-Oakland side is Jorge Leon, representing San Jose is Jeffrey August. Listen to the show and chime in.

Jeffrey’s comment added:

Hey All… That is me taking the San Jose side. To be clear, I am still 100% in favor of anything happening in the Bay Area (Oakland included). In this debate, I took the San Jose side, but as you can probably tell from most of my answers that is strictly because I believe the path to privately financing a stadium in San Jose is much more clear.

Some general observations:

I feel kindred to Jorge Leon. He is a good guy and has his heart in the right place. It is hard to criticize a guy like that.

Dale Tafoya is a rock star. I have been listening to his podcasts for a while (and I don’t always agree with the things David Feldmen says on them, ha). I hold him in the same esteem as Tyler Blezinski and ML. These are three guys we should all be thankful are part of our fanbase and have a DIY work ethic. I get more than the majority of my A’s news from these three guys (and their internet based media outlets).

Last, there was a couple of moderators that were originally scheduled but then actually didn’t appear. Zennie Abraham and Rich Liebermen. I believe it was scheduling conflicts for both. I was actually looking forward to getting grilled by Zennie, that will have to wait for another day.

Lastly, let’s hope there is no need for a podcast like this next offseason.

11.18.10
by

It’s good hittin’ weather


It’s the halfway point of the NFL season, which means that football is completely dominating the sports world. The NFL Network had its first Thursday night broadcast of the season, and two college football games will be played in MLB ballparks this weekend: Illinois-Northwestern at Wrigley Field, and Army-Notre Dame at Yankee Stadium. The Yankee Stadium football layout is from home plate to centerfield, making seats at the 50-yard line no great shakes. Wrigley Field is much more interesting, as it orients the gridiron much like AT&T Park but with less space to accomplish the task.

Source: Yahoo

Those drag routes across the back of the end zone are sure to be exciting. Update 11/20 – Big Ten officials and the teams’ head coaches had a pow-wow and decided to disuse the east end zone shown above. Instead, both teams will drive toward the safer west end zone when on offense. Bizarre.

Over in Philly, the Eagles are doing something really cool – they’re taking their home stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, off the power grid. To achieve this, 80 wind turbines and 2,500 solar panels will be installed. As large as that is, those renewable energy sources will only provide 15% of the expected output, while a plant that burns either natural gas or biofuels will handle the rest. Still, it’s an admirable effort and something the A’s should look to duplicate – at least the wind/solar part. The Giants, of course, were the first to cover their roof with solar panels. Less than a mile east of the Diridon site, Adobe placed several wind turbines within its building complex.

Enough of the feel-good. Let’s get back to greed business.

  • AEG’s Tim Leiweke wants the citizens of the Southland to believe that a downtown LA football stadium can be built without parking. And that it’ll cost only $725 million. With a retractable roof.
  • As for possible tenants in such a stadium, the Chargers can pay a set amount each year to get out of the team’s lease at Qualcomm Stadium. The amount decreases every year for the next decade.
  • Apparently the NFL is willing to go to any length to get the Falcons out of the 18-year old Georgia Dome. The argument this time: the Dome prevents the Super Bowl from being played in “the elements” as it should. WHA?!?!?!
  • Oriole Park at Camden Yards, which is rapidly approaching its 20th year in service, is ready to undergo a series of improvements, including the removal of more than 2,000 seats, replacement of the existing seats with wider ones, and a drop in the number of luxury suites, from 72 to 50. The O’s are also changing their concessionaire from oft-criticized giant Aramark to Delaware North.
  • Perhaps emboldened by winning a public battle to get Mesa, AZ to pay for a new facility to replace HoHoKam Park, Cubs owner Tom Ricketts has his hands out for $200-300 million in TIF-financed renovations to Wrigley Field. Unlike most TIF financing structures that we’re familiar with in California, the money wouldn’t come from property taxes. Instead, funds to pay back the loans would come from a portion of the ticket taxes currently paid on tickets to Cubs games. The “amusement tax” would be frozen would be frozen at 12%, and planned raises to the tax would pay back the loans. Aside from the even more expensive tickets to come, it’s not an entirely bad idea since the Cubs are as consistent in terms of attendance as any team in baseball.
  • TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha is nearly 80% finished and on schedule for hosting the 2011 College World Series. The 24,000-seat, $128 million stadium looks like a smaller version of the redone Kauffman Stadium, which is a good thing.
  • Drayton McLane is trying to sell the Astros for $800 million, including a stake in CSN Houston.
  • According to AOL Fanhouse’s Jeff Fletcher, nothing happened this week at the November winter meetings regarding the A’s. Wait a few weeks, perhaps.
  • Speaking of being emboldened, Bryan Grunwald has an editorial at SFGate touting his 980 Deck ballpark plan. Will anyone listen?
  • The Trib comes out in favor of Victory Court, saying, “This is a great jumping off point for newly elected Mayor Jean Quan. She has to be all-in for this project and she must convince city leaders to do the same.”
  • Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is still trying (in vain?) to get some kinda of arena deal done that would keep the Kings in town. A meeting today marks the one year anniversary of an arena task force assembled to work a complex land swap that fizzled two months ago.
  • A report commissioned by the SF Board of Supervisors estimates the cost of hosting the 2013 America’s Cup at $42 million, plus $86 million in forgone revenue caused by giving development rights to whomever fixes up Piers 30/32 for the event. Race organizers and other business interests have pledged up to $32 million to help defray the cost. In the sports world, that sounds like an incredible deal.

If there’s anything else about venues worth including, send it in.

11.16.10
by

Not so breaking news

The EIR Notice of Preparation is here. Guidelines for the CEQA (EIR) process can be found here.

The informal selection of Victory Court as the preferred ballpark site has been the worst kept secret in Oakland for several weeks now, and we’ve known about the Planning Commission meeting since last week. So why are the regular media choosing to cover it now (EBX/Trib)? Must be a slow news day.

Still, there are a few takeaways, and credit goes to Robert Gammon in that regard. Mostly, they have to do with Mayor-elect Jean Quan’s view of the project, which is more meaningful than anything any other Oaklander, elected or not, has to say on it.

  • MLB’s commission wants a ballpark done for Oakland in time for Opening Day 2015. This is reasonable considering the normal 18-24 month EIR lead time, which could actually go longer because of Oakland’s recent history with large project EIR’s. Given Lew Wolff’s admission that he has been denied further extensions to the Coliseum lease, it leads to wondering about how a gap between the end of the 2013 season and the start of the 2015 season would play out. Is Oakland holding that extra year as leverage with the idea of pushing MLB in its direction? Is MLB entertaining Oakland’s bid in order to secure that extra year or perhaps more if necessary? Beyond those two parties, there are even more interesting questions. If the Raiders secure their own Coliseum stadium deal, won’t that impact an A’s 2014 year in the Coliseum, and vice-versa?
  • Quan said she also believes a new ballpark at Victory Court will help businesses in closeby Chinatown and could provide the impetus for a new hotel/convention center. It’s strange that the big unifying development strategy for all of downtown Oakland is a ballpark. It makes sense for a ballpark to be a major attraction, but the linchpin? That doesn’t make sense. However, that’s the direction that Oakland is moving towards with this hole-in-the-donut strategy. What if the ballpark doesn’t pan out? That doesn’t mean that Oakland will be ready to go with Plan B, whatever that is. It’s one thing for corporate interests to help pay for a ballpark. That’s not going to happen with a convention center complex. Those projects are usually 100% public/redevelopment funded. From a purely numbers/potential standpoint, a ballpark makes sense because it’s essentially “free” money and buzz, especially if the financing part can be worked out. Something else in the ballpark’s place could take many more years to get going.
  • Quan believes that the only way Major League Baseball would turn down Wolff and Fisher’s request to move the team to San Jose is if the City of Oakland shows that it has a viable plan for a new A’s ballpark and that city leadership is committed to making it happen. If true, this spawns a number of new questions about MLB’s timeframe. Will they set a hard date to complete the EIR and land acquisitions? Will MLB set targets or milestones for the project? What if Oakland doesn’t meet those milestones, or new challenges or opposition shows up? Could MLB create for itself an easy out if things aren’t going well? What constitutes fair or unfair is almost entirely subjective.
  • In another Gammon article about Quan, it was noted that as part of Quan’s “Not Don” campaign, a mailer “repeatedly pounded Perata for the Oakland Raiders deal, a financial debacle that will end up costing East Bay taxpayers more than $600 million. At least two mailers, showed a mostly empty Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, with the message: ‘Thanks, Don.’ ”  The challenge for Quan is to show that she can more competently get a stadium deal done than Perata. The key to this is transparency at every stage of the process. Since the original four sites in May were whittled to one with no public vetting and at least a few commenters will chime in on 12/1 with their own recommendations, it’ll be fascinating to see how the preferred site and alternatives are handled. Will all buildable sites have to be included in the EIR? What if the EIR actually recommends a different alternative to Victory Court (unlikely but still)? The dagger in the Fremont plan was the abrupt change from Pacific Commons to Warm Springs, with no public input beforehand. In San Jose, the Diridon site was not the frontrunner at the outset and only became the preferred site over time. From a selling the public standpoint, how warm are the citizens of Oakland to any stadium deal, even one that has the team picking up the entire construction tab? We’ve seen a Facebook group, we have yet to see a single poll on the subject.

While we’re waiting for the process to kick off, I’ve found a couple of nuggets that might be helpful. First up, a cursory look at the California EPA’s Cortese list shows that none of the parcels at Victory Court fall under brownfield or contaminated status.

victory-ct-project-area

Source: Project EIR Notice of Preparation

One of the more curious aspects of the project is the land grouping, including the Laney College parking lot. While it makes sense for the ballpark to use the Laney lot as part of its parking infrastructure, it’s also quite possible that like the Diridon plan, there could be no parking at the ballpark at all. If there’s no parking at the ballpark, there’s also less environmental impact from the ballpark. That doesn’t mean that the 880 on/off-ramps won’t need improvements, but it could mean that the cost for those improvements won’t be as severe as they could be. Instead, fans would be encouraged to park at Laney (expanded or not), downtown, or at JLS. It’s only one of many details that will have to be addressed as part of the process.

11.15.10
by

Five degrees of separation

Here at the ballpark blog, we’ve been very upfront about one particular issue when it comes to Cisco Field: We don’t like bandboxes. From the initial look, that’s exactly what it appears to be. We were even concerned enough to consult a noted expert about the ramifications of implementing the ballpark using the speculated dimensions, and the results only made us more fearful. We’ve been conditioned, as good A’s (and baseball) fans, to love the occasional 1-0 shutout that runs only 2:15. While the Diridon site creates limitations as to the layout, there’s still plenty of room to put in a neutral field.

To refresh your memory, here’s what the existing plan looks like.

In hopes of effecting some kind of change, I took the projected layout and revised it slightly. The changes are as follows:

  • Field orientation is rotated 5 degrees north (counterclockwise).
  • Home plate is moved roughly 10 feet east.  This may seem strange considering the space constraints on the east side of the lot, it’ll make sense later.
  • The seating bowl, which is at a 75 degree angle, is made more acute to end up at 65 degrees.
  • The outfield wall is redrawn to keep the the left field grandstands parallel to streets and existing lot lines.

Now here’s what the revised layout looks like.

The outfield dimensions are now 328-375-402-376-314.

A lot better, no?

Rotating the field makes an incredible difference, even a 5 degree change. It opens up the outfield a ton and makes for a much deeper transition from the right field corner to the power alley. Now that extra set of seats/bleachers in right field isn’t so bad, as the 36-foot high wall goes from 314′ to 370′ and then drops to a 12′ high wall at 356′. Left field is a pretty standard set of dimensions, with the quirk being a pitcher-friendly jump from 328′ to 370′. Center field’s 402′ is pretty blah.

There are some compromises and penalties that come with rotating the field. The LF line cuts into the grandstand more, so much that I was forced to move home plate 10 feet east to compensate. By doing this, the LF corner can be fairly standard and not many seats are lost. To keep the simple contour of the seating bowl, the angle of the bowl had to be brought in 10 degrees. If that hadn’t been done, a kink or bend along the first base line would’ve been required. The resulting angle is 65 degrees, which should create for better sight lines than the original concept (75 degrees).

As with the original analysis, I’ve projected two capacities, one in which there are a minimal number of rows and another where there are four additional rows for both the lower and upper decks. All else stays the same. One change is the inclusion of a service tunnel near the LF corner. An outline of seating sections is shown where the affected seats would be taken out.

Additional notes:

  • ADA locations refers to wheelchair locations and companion chairs. It is assumed that some accessible seats within the seating bowl will have flip-up armrests.
  • Temporary seating refers to rows of seats at the back of available sections. It’s a simple way to add seats for a nominal cost, and can be easily adjusted on an as needed basis. Unused ADA rows can be replaced by rows of temporary seats if space is available. The Giants have employed this method of adding seats extensively.
  • The third deck (club) has been omitted to reduce clutter. The suite level (tucked underneath the upper deck) is obscured.
  • After some discussion, I’m going with 36-foot high wall in right, which is closer to what Jeffrey and gojohn10 have suggested. (The Green Monster is 37′ 3″ high)
  • Bullpens are still in center.

Questions? Fire away.