Category Archives: Football

04.16.12
by

Getting ready for a groundbreaking, 49ers style

I’m leaving for San Diego on Wednesday, so I won’t have a chance to check out the 49ers’ groundbreaking ceremony on Thursday. So I decided to walk by the construction site to see what’s going on. Demolition has been completed, and a large section of the site has been graded and paved. A crew worked through the weekend to put up a big tent, bleachers, and an artificial turf field which I assume is the where the actual field will stand when the stadium is completed.

View from Tasman Drive

In the picture above, a piledriver stands at the left edge. You can see a small patch of green (the field) in the middle, then the bleachers and tent. 49er headquarters are in the background.

View from along San Tomas Aquino Creek trail

Enough bleachers are being brought in to host a high school football game. There also appear to be some auxiliary structures. Fancy groundbreaking, this is.

Back side of the site

Construction equipment sits lined up behind the tent, along with various materials.

A while back I put up a poll asking readers which project would be done first, the 49ers stadium or the A’s ballpark. Clearly, the winner is the football stadium despite its enormous cost. Being first has everything to do with the NFL stepping in and recognizing the opportunity in Santa Clara. MLB? Not so much.

P.S. – If any readers attend the groundbreaking ceremony, I’d love to get pictures to post here.

04.07.12
by

A’s, O.co have rift over Coliseum name

A year ago, the Coliseum Authority inked a deal with internet retailer Overstock.com for naming rights at the Coliseum. That led to a further renaming from Overstock.com Coliseum to O.co Coliseum, which rolls off the tongue like so many classic stadium names like CMGI Field, PSINet Stadium, or 3Com Park. Apparently the A’s have been rather casual about honoring the change, because the references to O.co either at the stadium or during broadcasts are few and far between. The reason? Money, of course. The Trib’s Angela Woodall reports that the naming rights deal splits the $2 million per year between the JPA and the Raiders, with nothing going to the A’s.

Find O.co in this screenshot

Woodall points out that the A’s have control over the pouring rights and signage, a deal that was hammered out in the post-Mt. Davis settlement. The A’s and O.co are working out their own deal, though I have a sense that both sides are bringing an overinflated sense of worth to the proceedings. For now, the team is only obligated to promote O.co three times per game during radio and TV broadcasts. So it’s not surprising that when fans go to the Coliseum page on the A’s website, they might not realize that O.co is a sponsor due to the lack of mentions.

That’s just as well. Even though the A’s have many more games broadcast than the Raiders, O.co probably values the mentions during Raiders games, which are nationally broadcast, more than the baseball team’s mostly local broadcasts. Last Monday, the SEC closed an investigation into the retailer’s previous financial disclosures. That could halt the company’s six-month stock slide, though you wouldn’t know it from trading this week.

The Coliseum has gone through several name changes in its life, all of them starting with Mt. Davis:

  • Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (original-1998)
  • UMAX Coliseum (1997, aborted)
  • Network Associates Coliseum (1998-2004)
  • McAfee Coliseum (2004-08)
  • Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum (reprise after McAfee deal expired, 2008-11)
  • Overstock.com Coliseum (2011, briefly)
  • O.co Coliseum (2011-current)

Isn’t it time to leave well enough alone?

03.30.12
by

News for 3/30/12

For the end of the week:

  • The NBA is stepping in to pay $3.25 million in predevelopment costs on the Sacramento ESC project after the Maloofs refused, saying that they shouldn’t have to pay since they’re tenants. It sure sounds like the Maloofs don’t see themselves as stakeholders in the arena, which is a bad sign. Everyone should be rowing in one direction. A group has organized to force the plan to a vote.
  • AEG’s downtown LA stadium plan seems to be stalled, as the company and the NFL can’t agree on terms for what AEG’s contribution and minority share should be. Now that the Dodgers ownership saga is ending, there are renewed calls for a stadium in Chavez Ravine, either to sit next to or replace Dodger Stadium.
  • The Giants unveiled several improvements to AT&T Park. The big changes are the new sponsor for the mezzanine club level, Virgin America, and the transformation of one of the field boxes down the first base line into the “Corona Beach Bar”, complete with sand. The narrow bridge on the promenade level next to the Fan Lot will finally be expanded. In addition, concession carts on the promenade level will be moved to the back walls, which will open up views of the field from the concourse.
  • Peter Guber, Warriors co-owner, may end up partnering with the Giants on an arena in SF, while the Giants compete with Guber’s Dodgers.
  • Rangers Ballpark will be serving a $26 hot dog this year. No, it is not made of unicorn meat.
  • Ray Ratto gives his thoughts on what the Dodgers sale might mean for the Giants and A’s.
  • The Atlantic compares two cities, Denver and Phoenix, and how building ballparks has impacted their respective downtowns. (thanks hecanfoos)
  • Defying convention, the Census Bureau lists the three most densely populated areas in the U.S. as #1 Los Angeles, #2 San Francisco/Oakland, and #3 San Jose. There are flaws in the methodology, in that #5 New York City includes all of the suburbs in New Jersey and Connecticut, but SF/OAK doesn’t include the 680 corridor or any of the North Bay besides parts of Marin County. History and trends have largely defined the specific urbanized areas the Census uses in its surveys.
  • Memphis Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley will not sell the team to Larry Ellison because of Ellison’s continued interest in moving the team to San Jose. From the article:

Heisley is asking $350 million for the Grizzlies and says he makes it clear with potential buyers that the team’s arena lease with the city and county is rigid. There are several clauses and financial penalties that make it a daunting task to move the Grizzlies before 2021.

  • The NY Post’s Peter Vecsey reports that David Stern was in SF “inspecting building plans and the site” for an arena across from AT&T Park. He also notes that Larry Ellison was not daunted by the cost to break the FedEx Forum lease, though that’s not exactly easy to prove or disprove.

More as it comes. Probably no new posts until Monday at the earliest unless big news breaks.

03.27.12
by

The Coliseum that never was

What’s the pic? It’s a ramp leading to an underground service tunnel for the abandoned stadium next to ARCO Arena/Power Balance Pavilion. Overgrown with grass and trees, the foundation is practically invisible except for unfinished rebar columns sticking up from the concrete foundation.

Exposed rebar from the stadium's foundation is camouflaged by the environment. View from north, arena in background.

The arena and its stillborn brother would never have come to fruition without the vision of Gregg Lukenbill, a developer who lured the NBA’s Kansas City Kings from the Midwest in 1985 with promises of a new arena and a growing community. The Kings played in a converted office building (ARCO Arena I) for three seasons before moving to their “permanent” home in the largely undeveloped Natomas area north of downtown along I-5. Even as the money game of owning a franchise passed Lukenbill by, he remained a cheerleader of the city, as well as a critic of both Sacramento politics and the Maloofs.

View north from ramp outside arena's northwest entrance. More of the foundation is visible.

Lukenbill almost managed to lure teams from elsewhere in California as well. He lobbied hard to pull the Raiders from Los Angeles, as Al Davis entertained offers from numerous cities and played all of them off each other. The Sacramento Raiders plan would be based on a $120 million, 53,000-seat stadium next to ARCO Arena. Though it would’ve looked a lot like Anaheim Stadium in its football era, the stadium would’ve been different from either The Big A or Candlestick Park in that it would’ve been built first for football, and later baseball (43,000 capacity) if everything came together. The rising costs of competing in the major sports space eventually caught up with Lukenbill, who was not nearly as rich as many others entering the game, and tried to construct venues on the cheap – a practice that would become unsuitable once Camden Yards opened.

Model of a finished multipurpose stadium north of ARCO Arena

The big coup, though, would’ve been if Lukenbill had brought the Giants up I-80 to the Capitol. Bob Lurie’s ongoing dissatisfaction with The ‘Stick was well known, and Lukenbill was well poised to pounce on the opportunity. Just as the Giants are politically involved in the A’s stadium situation now, Lukenbill thrust himself into what the Giants were doing then by funding a mailer against Proposition P, the original China Basin ballpark plan championed by then-SF Mayor Art Agnos. Proposition P was defeated in 1989 in the wake of Loma Prieta, causing serious turmoil for the Giants over the next few years, while allowing San Jose and Santa Clara to enter the picture. Lukenbill was subpoenaed after the election, but nothing came of it.

Plans to bring the Giants (or any other baseball team) never gained much traction, and Davis turned his attention back to LA in short order. Still, it’s interesting to think about Sacramento having three major sports franchises in its midst: Kings, Raiders, Giants. Would Lurie or Davis have been satisfied with the stadium in the long run? Probably not. As the Kings, Giants, and others chose not to go to Sacramento, Lukenbill ran out of money and sold the arena to one of his co-owners and the Kings to Jim Thomas.

The greatest legacy of the failed stadium is a closed-off tunnel which leads north from the arena and connects the two. It’s only accessible from the bowels of the arena and has gotten some interesting uses over the years. It doesn’t quite have the flexibility of the Exhibit Hall setup at the Coliseum, yet it’s emblematic of Lukenbill’s vision: bold, big, and ultimately, unfinished.

Tomorrow: A (probably) final visit to ARCO.

03.09.12
by

News for 3/9/12

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

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

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

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

03.07.12
by

3/6/12 News Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The City Council is couching their words.

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

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

3. 980 Park and the Ghost of Victory Court

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

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

…

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

03.06.12
by

More from Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Dobbins – Save Oakland Sports

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

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

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

Black Hole guy from Brentwood

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

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

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

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

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

Council members

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nadel – Constituents support 980 Park as part of study.

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

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

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

03.06.12
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20120306-184411.jpg

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

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

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

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

03.05.12
by

Judge strikes down second 49ers stadium referendum

Last week, Santa Clara City Council Member Jamie McLeod hinted at a verdict in the case of City vs. referendum seekers, and it’s here: NO on the referendum. Appeals notwithstanding, there are no obstacles left for the 49ers and City to start building the $1.02 billion stadium on the Great America auxiliary lot.

Taken a week ago: Earth being moved for new sewer lines and utilities to sit under stadium. Note that safety lighting has not yet been removed.

Judge Peter Kirwan clearly sided with the City in his ruling:

In arguing their position, the city and 49ers cited past cases, saying voters only have one shot at deciding “legislative” policy issues, such as stadium construction. Any subsequent issues — like the loan — are only “administrative” acts needed to carry out the wishes of voters who approved the project in June 2010, they maintain.

If there’s a dangerous precedent, it’s that any municipality who chooses to build a stadium in the Bay Area can choose to be purposefully vague or obfuscating when writing up stadium deal terms, get a referendum passed, then fill in the blanks later. Time will tell if others use this as a template. It also remains to be seen if this actually ends up a good deal for Santa Clara years into the lease. Regardless, congratulations are in order to Santa Clara and the San Francisco 49ers, whose diligence (and a lot of help from the NFL) helped make this happen. I look forward to the open house, and will post the occasional picture as construction progresses.
02.29.12
by

News for 2/29/12 (Leap Day)

A good amount of stuff to report today:

  • Oakland’s CEDA Committee approved an action to have the City Council vote on EIR funding for Coliseum City. The City Council will take up the action next Tuesday night. A’s Fan Radio did a stalwart job of covering today’s proceedings. A similar action was taken prior to the City Council voting on Victory Court in December 2010. If the City Council approves the expenditure, two things need to happen: A) The work has to actually happen, unlike Victory Court, and B) A plan must be clearly articulated to show how the teams and venues will be accommodated. That last bit is probably the most important to the leagues, who are the real gatekeepers. Update 12:10 PM: As Bryan Grunwald notes in the comments, the 980 Park concept will be included as an alternative.
  • The Santa Clara City Council approved the 40-year ground lease for the 49ers stadium. This was considered a formality because the Council approved the lease to the Stadium Authority, which is simply the City Council wearing different hats. The interesting note to come out of the session was dissenter Jamie McLeod’s mentioning the ongoing California Supreme Court case over a potential new referendum. The case could be decided in the next week.
  • A new grassroots group trying to keep all three teams in Oakland has been formed. The group is called Save Oakland Sports. Seems a bit late to do something like this, but it can’t hurt. Besides, Baseball Oakland has gone largely dormant since the Victory Court plan was scrapped.
  • Frank McCourt has been unwilling to sell the parking lots surrounding Dodger Stadium, and several bidding groups have dropped out as a result. One of the drop-outs was the group led by Rick Caruso and Joe Torre, considered one of the frontrunners. The parking lot attendant has truly come full circle.
  • The Kings arena deal looks complex. And yes, it does look like the Maloofs will be borrowing to put up their share. The term sheet is due for public release on Thursday.
  • The City of Miami approved funding for rubber wheel trolleys that will run between downtown and the Marlins Ballpark in Little Havana.
  • San Francisco’s America’s Cup will be missing one major venue going forward: Piers 30 & 32. The piers were supposed to be used as a large staging area for teams. Costs may have proved prohibitive. The race will continue as planned, but there will be huge distances between the venues.
  • MLB and the MLBPA are finalizing details of the revised playoff system that will include a fifth team in each league and a wildcard playoff game.

Radio ratings were released last week. The winter results show a sort of stabilization. As baseball season begins, KNBR-680’s ratings should rise. Will The Game’s? As the Warriors end their season early, KNBR-1050 should take a hit.

Arbitron ratings for the last three months

If you’re wondering, former A’s station KTRB finally showed up in the ratings book last month. The rating? 0.0 in the SF market.