Category Archives: News

12.20.11
by

The long slog to the South Bay

Last week’s news that VTA may get BART to the South Bay as early as 2016 was certainly welcome, though many important steps remain. In the spring, federal New Starts funding has to materialize for the extension to move forward. Fortunately, the fact that work is already underway on the separate-but-linked Warm Springs extension should help the Silicon Valley extension’s case. As we’ve discussed previously, the South Bay extension has been split into two parts to help its chances of getting funding for the entire project. As a result, the first part extension to Berryessa (the flea market) is scheduled to be completed by 2016-2018. The second part, which runs through downtown San Jose and up to the airport, has no completion date at this time. FYI, Phase 1 is about the same length as the Dublin/Pleasanton extension from Bay Fair.

The 10-mile Berryessa extension (Silicon Valley Phase 1) is in addition to the 5.4-mile Warm Springs extension

Terminating BART in Berryessa leaves no clear solution for ferrying fans from BART to the Diridon Station area, where the ballpark would be. Any highway-based bus routing is circuitous. Running on city streets would be a shorter trip. Either way it’s at least an extra 20 minutes after leaving BART even if it’s a direct bus with no additional stops. A natural BART-to-light rail transfer in Milpitas would take 40 minutes, though it would shave off a few minutes of BART time. Keep that in mind when looking at the following table of travel times, comparing BART, Caltrain, and Capitol Corridor.

Caltrain and Capitol Corridor trains arrive at ballpark. BART is more frequent but would require a 20-40 minute transfer (at least in the near term). Caltrain and Capitol Corridor times are published. BART times are estimates except for Coliseum.

What would take a shuttle 20-40 minutes to bridge the gap between Berryessa and Diridon would probably take only 5-6 minutes if BART went all the way to Diridon. Alas, that’s not in the cards until several years after Phase 1 starts operation. One interesting observation is that Capitol Corridor is somewhat competitive timewise with BART when heading all the way down to San Jose. Unfortunately, fares are much more expensive than BART.

There’s never been a doubt that just about any Oakland site is more convenient for much of the Bay Area and the existing East Bay fan base than San Jose. Even with BART coming to San Jose, it would seem that trips averaging an hour or more plus a transfer would be prohibitively lengthy for many fans. The flipside to that argument is that both the Giants and A’s in their current locations aren’t all that accessible from the South Bay, so if MLB were to place the two teams so that they could grab the largest potential audience for the MLB product, having the Giants in SF and the A’s in SJ would make the most sense.

Even if A’s management were to earn back much of the goodwill lost over the last decade, long trips from the East Bay will surely cause a reduction of fans from that region, making it all the more important that the A’s replace those lost or less frequently attending fans with South Bay fans. Certainly there are Sharks fans who make the trek from the East Bay now, but going to 2-3 games per week per homestand is a lot less rigorous than 6 games per week. The A’s have recently had among the lowest season ticket rolls in MLB (7-8,000), so replacing them may not be such a huge task. It goes to show that even if the A’s get the green light for San Jose, there’s plenty of work left to do.

12.19.11
by

South Bay Stuff

January is getting closer. We might actually hear some good news. We should hear one way or another.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel exposed Stand for San Jose as a farce. I’ve written enough about them. Read down in the Facebook comments for a statement from the plaintiff Eileen Hannan, who is now crying foul as she claims she was ambushed by Seipel in her questioning. If you can’t take the heat… Just a reminder, the A’s coming to SJ doesn’t necessarily mean the little Giants have to leave. If that happens, the decision will be made by the big club in SF, the owner.

On a sad note, Tony Lima, the artist responsible for all of the hand-painted artwork at San Jose Municipal Stadium, is in failing health due to cancer. His work was always endearing, sometimes whimsical, and helped make the family friendly atmosphere at Muni.

The Orioles announced changes to Camden Yards to enhance the fan experience, including a new centerfield viewing area, dropping the height of the rightfield wall a little, and six sculptures of great O’s of the past.

Sports Business Journal’s Daniel Kaplan reports that the 49ers sold a “low nine figures” share of the team to a Silicon Valley exec in order to help finance the Santa Clara stadium. In a followup, he thinks it’s someone at Facebook though he can’t confirm it. If the Raiders want to build their own stadium, they may have to do the same even though they’ve been selling off shares for some time.

Later today – a BART article.

12.14.11
by

News for 12/14/11

A boatload of news has been piling up.

  • Matier and Ross “reveal” that the real party behind the Stand for San Jose lawsuit is, in fact, the San Francisco Giants. Glad to know that Larry Baer and company are so concerned with traffic in downtown San Jose. (SFGate)
  • The San Jose Earthquakes have gotten their development permit, so they are one step closer to breaking ground. (SBNation/Quake, Rattle and Roll)
  • VTA approved $772 million for the BART-to-Silicon Valley project. This funding is contingent on federal matching funds, for which a decision is due in February. Incentives in the bidding could allow the first phase, which ends at the Berryessa/Flea Market site in North San Jose, to be opened as much as 18 months ahead of schedule in 2016. Berryessa is three miles from Diridon and there is no light rail transfer from there, so unless there is a special bus or existing routes are realigned, the best bet may be to transfer to light rail at the Great Mall. A post dedicated to this subject is due in the future. (Gary Richards, Merc)
  • Santa Clara’s City Council approved $850 million in loans for its Stadium Authority to take out for the 49ers stadium. The money won’t actually be raised unless the NFL chips in with its $150 million share.
  • The Merc’s Tim Kawakami tweets that the 49ers “might land a naming-rights deal with a green technology company…” Okay.
  • Now that Tesla is gearing up for production at the old NUMMI plant and Union Pacific decided not to use land there for a big train/intermodal yard, Fremont is looking deep into ways to redevelop the land, the same way Oakland is looking at the Coliseum area. The 850 acres in question could be developed in a mixed use manner with up to 3,000 homes. Unlike Oakland, Fremont’s tendency to think small may keep things rather humble in nature, though that could change if some sort of anchor element were part of the planning. Like, oh, a stadium. (Matt Artz, Argus. Note: Good luck to Matt on his switch to the never boring Oakland city beat.)
  • MLB may be getting ready to seize control of the Mets because the team is losing money like crazy. Let’s see, maybe a little after the Dodgers are sold in April/May? (John Harper, NY Daily News)
  • Ever wonder where money from concerts and non-game events goes? This article tries to figure it out. (Tom Lyden, FOX 9 Twin Cities)
  • Marlins ballpark news: There may be a scandal about shotty welds and falsified inspections on the retractable roof (Andres Viglucci, Miami Herald); See pictures inside and outside the stadium (Joe Capozzi, Palm Beach Post; Juan Gonzalez, Stadium Page); the Marlins are getting rid of their sideshow dance troupes of skinny girls and fat guys (Juan C. Rodriguez, Sun Sentinel)
  • Robert Bobb is back in DC after two years as the Detroit Public Schools financial czar. What’s he doing? Consulting, of course.
  • Qualcomm is changing the name of Qualcomm Stadium to “Snapdragon Stadium” for 11 days to give a marketing boost for its mobile chipset. (Terry Lefton, Sports Business Journal)
  • The NFL announced extensions of its TV deals through 2022. Changes include an expanded Thursday night package on NFL Network and NBC getting rights to the Thanksgiving night game. Combined value of all TV deals is $4.3 billion a year, enough to take care of every team’s annual payroll without ever selling a ticket. (NFL Communications, Variety)

That’s it for now.

12.13.11
by

Whither the Hornets?

On my birthday I woke up to news that the NBA and players had reached a tentative agreement to play the 2011-12 season. 20% of the regular season will be lost as teams will be forced to play a truncated, 66-game, 120 day season ending in late April. I thought this was a good opportunity to radically change the NBA schedule, which runs from Halloween to Easter with playoffs through the first week of June, to a pushed back schedule of Christmas to Memorial Day and playoffs until late July or even early August, commonly known as the dog days of summer. Oh well, they didn’t make such a change so we’re “blessed” with a rapid fire schedule with numerous back-to-back-to-back game sets. It will surely be brutal to the finish.

It’s also brutal seeing what’s happening to the New Orleans Hornets. GM Dell Demps had a deal to send superstar point guard Chris Paul to the Lakers, who would send Lamar Odom back to the Hornets and Pau Gasol to the Rockets, who would then send a bevy of players including Luis Scola and Kevin Martin to New Orleans. It seemed a fair trade last week and was assumed to be a done deal until Commissioner David Stern stepped in and killed it, citing the now infamous “basketball reasons”. An attempt to revive the deal with additional parts was also rejected, as were two attempts by the other LA team, the Clippers. The Hornets, which are owned by the league and the other 29 team owners, are completely handcuffed when it comes to making player moves and will surely field an awful team this year, whether they trade Paul by Christmas or not. The reasons for doing this are rather divergent. Cavs owner Dan Gilbert complained about not getting a piece of the Lakers’ luxury tax payment. Mavs owner Mark Cuban thought it was unfair to “take advantage” of a small market team. There were plenty of whispers that Stern wanted to stick it to superagency CAA and make Paul an example that the players can’t just dictate where they wanted to go, though that’s not what Paul was doing in this case. Supposedly Paul is being kept on the roster simply to raise the team’s attractiveness for potential buyers, even though it’s unlikely that Paul will stick around when he becomes a free agent in the summer.

A year has passed since the NBA bought the Hornets from two-time owner failure George Shinn, and there is no sign of a local buyer that could come in to rescue the team, despite the fact that the team reached its season ticket and attendance goals last year. There are a few prominent locals who could be positioned to be minority owners, but that’s not going to be enough. The NBA seems to have raised its bar to prevent undercapitalized groups from buying, such as Atlanta Hawks’ failed buyer Alex Meruelo. For the NBA to sign off on a new owner for the Hornets, the buyer will have to A) be willing to overpay for a franchise in the Big Easy, perhaps as much as $400 million, and B) be willing to absorb losses or deal with razor-thin margins in the market. It’s no wonder, then, that the Hornets are a prime relocation or contraction target.

Continuing to own the Hornets is a terrible conflict of interest for the NBA, which can’t operate the team normally while it tries to maximize value for a sale. On one hand, it wats to retain Paul as a key asset even though it’s clear he’s skipping town. On the other hand, it doesn’t want to saddle the team with a bunch of long-term contracts (read: talent) that would make the team less attractive for buyers. It’s a bad spot to be in, and it makes me scared that the league will simply throw its hands in the air and give up. I hope that’s not what happens, since there are options they can pursue:

  • Sell the team to Larry Ellison if he’s still interested. Ellison would obviously move the team to San Jose. I wrote in January that moving a team to San Jose, as much as Warriors owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber would rail against it, could advance talks in San Francisco for an arena there, since it’s likely that an arena deal in SF couldn’t be completed for either the W’s or relocated Hornets until after the 2016-17 season. Neither San Jose nor Oakland would like it much, but the NBA would at least know there’s some cushion there. Ellison is wrapped up in the America’s Cup project, so it’s unclear if he still has interest in the Hornets. If he paid $450 million, as Lacob-Guber did for the Warriors, the NBA probably wouldn’t blink twice and would back up the moving vans for him. The problem is that last year Ellison offered $350 million for the Hornets, so why would he pay $100 million more a year later for an arguably devalued franchise? If he paid that $350 million for the franchise, and the remaining $100 million went to Lacob/Guber so that they could terminate the lease at Oracle Arena and jumpstart the process in SF, that might just work.
  • Find a Seattle-based buyer and move the team to the Emerald City. Stern played hardball with Seattle as the Sonics were on their way out of town, so it isn’t likely that he or the owners would approve such a move until an arena deal were in place. Any publicly financed arena deal up there is every bit as dead a possibility as one in the Bay Area. It’s also unclear who would surface as a potential owner.
  • Move the team to a place with a new arena, such as Kansas City or Louisville. Neither market is particularly rich so it’s at best a lateral move. Both markets have new arenas, with Louisville an arguably better hoops market. Like Seattle, it’s unclear who would surface as buyer. The Kansas City option revives the possibility of the shouldn’t-be-revisited Kansas City-Omaha dual-city franchise since Omaha also has a relatively new arena. Forget I mentioned it.

This is not how David Stern wanted to wind down his career. A labor stoppage is forgivable among hardcore basketball fans, of which there are many and I am one. There are enough stars to propel the league forward. The Hornets debacle is a different story. It’s a complete clusterfuck, and it will be expensive for the league to extricate itself from the mess. The only question is who is going to pay. Does the NBA give up on the NOLA market, a terrible PR move, then stick the buyer with the tab? Does it fold the team and give the money back to the other owners? That itself is an even worse admission of failure, given that none of the four leagues have contracted teams in the last three decades. Figuring all of this out is well above my paygrade and is why Stern has been at the helm for three decades. It’s a no-win situation for him, and for that, I don’t envy him one bit.

12.12.11
by

Ruh Roh

The future at the Coliseum boils down to this.

Two areas defined for the Coliseum redevelopment plan. Area 1 is called "Coliseum City". Dotted orange lines are borders, not solid blue lines (zoning).

area1-2

I’ve been reading the meat of the Oakland Coliseum Area Specific Plans RFP. It has some clearly outlined goals:

  • To maintain a world class sports and entertainment complex
  • To attract major technology or science employers to the campus across 880 from the Coliseum (a.k.a. Zhone)
  • Create jobs
  • Provide long-term benefits to the East Oakland community
  • Support the airport

During Friday’s press conference, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan revealed that six firms have submitted proposals based on the RFP. It wasn’t immediately clear if the bids were based on both areas (Coliseum City, Oakland Airport Business Park) or just one. Either way I’m interested in seeing what will happen. As I’ve written previously, the process is going to take some time to complete. This is not an environmental impact report. That, and EIRs for specific items if they are deemed large enough to require such studies, would come later. The scope is large, as it should be if it’s covering 750 acres. It includes an advisory that any consultants should plan for 25 project meetings with city staff, 8 community workshops, and 12 public meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council.

The interesting about the RFP is not that in the list of alternatives, it asks for one in which the A’s leave the Coliseum complex. In light of recent news about the Warriors being lured to SF and the possibility that the Raiders may join the 49ers in Santa Clara, what’s surprising is that there is no alternative that considers what would happen if all three tenant teams leave. At this admittedly early juncture, it seems a lot more likely that there will be only one or two teams left at the Coliseum in ten years than all three. It may be more likely that no teams will remain as opposed to the three.

In the City’s efforts to appease the Raiders, they’ve left huge openings for the Warriors and A’s to exploit if they wanted to leave. The Warriors have it good. The region is crazy for pro basketball as a product. The bar is astonishingly low for perceived success. Joe Lacob and Peter Guber (and Bob Piccinini, ahem) know that the Warrior fanbase will follow the team across the bay without batting an eyelash, and if some group of pro-Oakland fans chose to protest, they’d be easily replaced by fans in the West Bay. We’ve been chronicling the A’s efforts to stay and leave for over 6 1/2 years here, so I don’t need to rehash all of that. As for the Raiders, consider this: it was the NFL, not the 49ers, that put together much of the $850 million of financing for the Santa Clara stadium, including Goldman Sachs. Does anyone honestly think that the NFL and Goldman Sachs would do that if they weren’t going to lean heavily on the Raiders to play in Santa Clara, at least for a decade? The agreement drawn up with the City of Santa Clara supposedly has the team and the NFL on the hook for debt service, so it’s reasonable to think the Raiders will be nudged south. The NFL doesn’t give out it “G-3” loans to just anyone. It doesn’t want to do it twice in the Bay Area if it can help it, especially if another $150 million is in play for a stadium in either LA or San Diego.

A proactive, instead of reactive, government would at least explore the possibility of no teams at the Coliseum just to suss out the potential of the area post-pro sports. Pride and the lingering debt on the stadium and arena are pushing the City in a different direction that may not be very realistic. The challenges for Oakland in developing the Coliseum area are many:

  • Cost to build new stadia or significantly improve the arena have to be borne by the teams. At a half-billion for W’s or A’s and $1 billion for the Raiders, the cost gives an owner pause.
  • The likelihood for a big name employer to take the Zhone campus is slim. The City tried to pitch the campus as one of its two bids to lure the Lawrence Berkeley Labs second campus. That lost out to Brooklyn Basin Oak-to-Ninth, though LBL has delayed the announcement of the new campus location until next year.
  • With each tenant that leaves, that’s one less anchor to attract developers. Based on the number of games and usage, the Raiders should be the easiest one to let go of since they only play 10 games a year. A ballpark has 82 games, an arena 42+ and concerts and other events. That makes it doubly puzzling that they’d go so hard for the Raiders.

Let’s be clear about something. It makes sense for the City of Oakland to think about the future. They shouldn’t think with tunnel vision. The RFP mentions baseball twice, and specifically figures the Raiders in as part of the future. The City needs to work on all possibilities, not just the Raiders or a pie-in-the-sky Coliseum City development. No matter how Mayor Quan tries to spin the process in Oakland as “easy”, figuring out what to do the Coliseum 10, 20 years down the road is anything but. The plan needs to be comprehensive. As the process starts in earnest over the next year, I hope that Oakland residents start asking the tough questions. They deserve real answers. They’ll have their chance in the workshops and hearings.

12.10.11
by

Retreat!

On Friday there were actually three big news stories that could affect the A’s future for some time to come. Naturally, there was the Oakland press conference that amount to very little, followed up shortly thereafter by the trade of Trevor Cahill to Arizona for prospects. The biggest news, however, may be not directly related to the A’s at all. After the Angels’ blockbuster signings of Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson, it was revealed how Arte Moreno is going to pay for them: a new TV contract with Fox Sports worth $3 billion over 20 years.

Think about that. $150 million per year for the next 20 years. The previous Angels TV contract (also with Fox) was worth $50 million a year, which already probably tripled what the A’s were getting via TV. Now they’re getting ten times as much as the A’s. They’ll get more from TV than the A’s get from all sources save for revenue sharing.  Jonah Keri wrote in September how the Rangers’ big TV deal with Fox Sports (20 years, $1.6 billion) made the Rangers poised to become another dynasty, and then the Angels come along and blow that out of the water with a deal worth nearly double. The Angels can practically service their entire payroll just with TV, radio, and a little bit Central Revenue money, which makes every ticket sold, every hot dog served pure gravy. And because the Angels have historically had among the lowest ticket and concession prices in the majors, they now have massive headroom to raise those prices and the obvious justification to do so.

Forbes’ 2010 revenue figure for the Angels was $222 million. For the 2011 season, that probably edged up to $230 million. You may recall that I wrote about $230 million being a revenue target for the A’s – in 2015.  The Angels hit that mark this year, and will absolutely blow past $300 million in the future thanks to the new TV deal. The next edition of Forbes’ list could have the Angels jump from #9 to #3 or even #2, past the Cubs, Red Sox, Mets, perhaps even the Dodgers. (Don’t worry about the Dodgers though, they’ve been court-approved for a new TV deal that will zoom past the Angels at around $4 billion over 20 years.) That’s scary. It doesn’t portend well for the A’s in the future. Seattle is just as much in a pickle. The Bay Area is home to 7 million residents, with less than half “devoted” to the A’s. The Seattle Metro has 3.5 million residents. The DFW Metroplex has 6.4 million. The LA-to-Riverside MSA has nearly 18 million. It would seem that TV deals tend to scale based on the number of households in each market, factoring in some level of fan interest. It also helps if there’s competition. LA’s chief cable provider, Time Warner, partnered with the Lakers to start their own RSN starting with the NBA’s 2012-13 season. The numbers for the deal look familiar: $3 billion over 20 years. That competition doesn’t exist in the Bay Area, where Comcast, Fox Sports, and the Giants partner on CSN Bay Area and Comcast wholly owns CSN California.

Given the massive amounts of money being thrown around, there doesn’t seem to be any practical way for the A’s to compete. In the October article I wrote that the A’s would have to double media revenues to compete, they might need triple or quadruple. Even then they’ll be way behind the Rangers and Angels. The best way to effect change might be for the A’s to start their own RSN, though that’s a huge gamble since running a network isn’t exactly cheap and the A’s aren’t the kind of ratings bonanza that’s attractive to advertisers. Plus there will be the immediate friction from Comcast, though in the end I’d expect it to be a ploy to get a better deal at CSNCA. Until then, if you’re the A’s braintrust what do you do? Sure, you work diligently for the stadium and you’ve been trying to improve your station in terms of media revenue. But despite your best efforts, with the new deals for rival teams threatening to make them Yankees equivalents of the West, the long rebuild strategy more than makes sense – it may be the only way to go.

oakland-presser1-120911

City Administrator Fred Blackwell talks about the Coliseum City concept. The only thing missing was a white flag.

Now let’s circle back to yesterday’s press conference. It was accompanied by a letter to MLB from Mayor Jean Quan (PDF). The letter affirms the City’s commitment to the A’s and outlines the support it can provide for its (now) two sites: Victory Court and Coliseum City. Here’s what was written about Victory Court:

Based on updated analysis, the City believes that the costs associated with the Victory Court ballpark project entitlements, land acquisition, and completion of site improvements and infrastructure have changed substantially since its earlier estimates and that those costs remain in the $250 million range. Although the mix of funding sources has been modified, the City remains confident that it will be able to deliver on its commitment to fund each of those elements. With regard to timeline, we believe we can deliver a site, which includes land assembly, full entitlement of the Ballpark project, and completion of infrastructure by November 2014.

The City claims that a new ballpark would be ready for the 2016 season. But that’s wrong. Assuming they were able to assemble the land and infrastructure pieces, construction would take 24-30 months from the ready date. That puts the opening of the Victory Court ballpark at 2017, not 2016. Remember, this is only one year after Victory Court was unveiled, with Quan saying when she got the mayor gig that Victory Court could be “fast-tracked“. Does 2017 sound like fast-tracking to you?

Beyond the problem grasping the schedule, there’s a major problem with the $250 million. City says that the “mix of funding sources has been modified”, which may be code for a reaction to the coming changes in redevelopment. Regardless, it’s clear that the money for this project would come from redevelopment, which means that the bulk of it would come from some form of TIF (federal grants? Don’t make me laugh.). Pushing the completion of the project out to 2017 suddenly becomes convenient. Why? The state’s plan to redirect “excess tax increment” would run for as much as the next five annual state budgets, with the system reverting back to normal once the budget crisis ends. As 2017 approaches and developers start to move on speculation near an approved-for-construction, vetted-by-MLB Victory Court site, property taxes should rise, which means that funding for the $250 million land/infrastructure piece should materialize. But there’s a fundamental flaw with the plan. Does anyone honestly believe that redevelopment will simply go back to normal and the state’s budget woes will be fixed in the next five years? The money to be realized from redirect redevelopment funds is only a small fraction of what’s needed to bridge the budget gap. Already, Governor Brown is pushing hard for new taxes next year and massive automatic budget cut triggers thanks to ongoing monthly revenue shortfalls. Then there’s the looming possibility that redevelopment will be abolished or transformed into a form that requires a new tax structure and local ballot measures.

Now on to Coliseum City. Exactly one year ago, I wrote an analysis of the Coliseum’s plans to build a new stadium for the Raiders along with ancillary development. Back then the plan looked like this:

coliseumredev2-sm

Something’s missing on the left side of the drawing.

The new version:

coliseum-city1-sm

Coliseum City with third venue

Most of the immediate ancillary development has been moved to in-between the venues and along 880. The scope has gotten much bigger. At 750 acres, the new initiative requires two specific plans, one for each side of 880. Coliseum City (at least the immediate area) is conceived of as three venues plus L.A. Live. It would require all three tenant teams to pony up most or all of the cost for their new or improved venues, with the possibility of ancillary revenue to help pay the bills. City is pitching the concept as having two big advantages over other cities or sites: No EIR required and land already owned by the City. While it’s correct that the environmental process should be streamlined, I think that having a third venue will require at least some form of EIR since planners have to account for the possibility of three events happening simultaneously and the impacts that would occur from that kind of situation. As for land, okay. And? The Coliseum has already been dismissed by MLB, so why pitch it as a feasible site now? Nothing has changed to explain how anyone can (not) pay for a privately financed ballpark there.

When I got word of the Friday event, I was curious, then suspicious. First of all, why do this on a Friday? What was the rush? Obviously, it was a reaction to the news that the Warriors are exploring an arena deal at China Basin. Here’s the irony of the situation: While the Giants are exploring with the Warriors a way to leave Oakland, Oakland has been consulting with the Giants on ways to derail the A’s efforts to move to San Jose. Strange bedfellows, indeed. Oakland’s strategy has turned into having a viable backup plan if San Jose doesn’t pan out, in which case not being able to deliver by 2015 or 2016 doesn’t matter since the A’s have no other choice in the Bay Area.

Very few members of the public were present since there was little advance notice. City could have drafted a resolution that would have been discussed at a future City Council session, but decided not to. Instead it was a short press conference with a short Q&A. That’s what it’s come to. A feeble punt of a letter. Even Quan’s letter ends on an odd note:

We are advocating for the A’s to remain in Oakland because we believe that sports franchises can lead to economic growth. So long as a team creates jobs and enhances economic development in the City, then we will encourage them to remain in Oakland. My advocacy for keeping the A’s is not about baseball or a particular sports franchise, it is about doing what is best for the City. I am convinced that Oakland has the best weather, transportation, fan base and sites available to MLB.

It’s all about what the City gets out of it. It’s not about the franchise. That’s refreshingly honest. Yet in the same paragraph Quan touts the sites, process delayed and shaky as they are, as the best. It’s this kind of fragmented, incongruous argument that melts under even the lightest scrutiny that’s had me so frustrated lo these many years.

With that, we have two big cases of retreating. The A’s know the new economic landscape, what steps they have to take to address it, and what shortfalls they face even if they achieve their immediate goals. Oakland has been flailing with its incoherent strategy, not revealing details or taking important steps. When I spoke to Doug Boxer yesterday, I told him that showing progress on an EIR matters. Milestones matter. He said it didn’t matter since the decision rested with one man (Bud Selig), and that the average fan doesn’t care. I was flabbergasted. What’s the point of having a Facebook operation if the average fan doesn’t matter? Why even have a press conference? He’s right about one thing, that there are no parties involved in this mess with clean hands. I came away saddened and I felt like a little bit of my soul died. Thankfully I had a few beers and nice conversation with LeAndre, then went to a friend’s donation party later that night. I could have drunken myself into a stupor, but I chose to ease up because I wanted to write this long article. Because I’m sick of the bullshit. It needs to stop. We need to move forward. Maybe the end is coming soon, maybe it isn’t. I’m not sure if I want to keep writing this blog if things don’t or can’t change. They say it’s always darkest before dawn, right? It’s pitch black right now.

12.09.11
by

Oakland 12/9 Press Conference

First of all, thanks to Nina Thorsen’s excellent start-to-finish coverage @KQEDNewsLive. She was tweeting like a madwoman while I was stuck in transit. Hopefully I’ll get to hear the audio soon so that I can comment more thoroughly. Bear with me, I’m at the Trappist celebrating LeAndre’s new job at Lucasfilm with him over beers (wow!).

Here’s what we know:

  • The Victory Court EIR is not done. Not even started.
  • The City is presenting two site options, Victory Court and the new Coliseum City. The Coliseum has an RFP out for planning and redevelopment of the Coliseum area on both sides of 880, and Coliseum City is basically the plan.
  • Mayor Jean Quan and Let’s Go Oakland’s Doug Boxer emphasized the positive economic impact of either plan.
  • Quan positions either site as feasible if MLB, the A’s and Warriors are willing to play ball.
  • Quan has talked to the Giants. They have said they could delay San Jose for up to ten years.
  • There will be renderings of Coliseum City released soon. I’ll put them up when I have a chance.

After the meeting we spoke to Let’s Go Oakland’s Doug Boxer briefly. He was very straightforward in his assessment:

  • The litigation aspect is a very real threat for the A’s.
  • The two Oakland sites are being pitched not only as alternatives to each other, but also as alternatives to San Jose if that plan doesn’t come to fruition.
  • I asked him if he was disappointed that there was no progress on at the state of the Victory Court EIR. He said yes but also understood why – the City is only dealing with itself until MLB commits to Oakland.
  • There are no innocents among the various parties (A’s, Giants, Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, MLB) involved in this mess.

Honestly, this came off pretty much as I expected. The Coliseum City plan makes sense since the City is putting resources into it. A new/revamped arena and ballpark can slot in as alternatives to a Raiders stadium in the planning work, so it’s like killing two birds with one stone. Other than that, it’s a terribly disappointing bit of news. There has been no action on the EIR front, and virtually nothing has happened in the last 2.5 years, yet Quan is characterizing the Oakland options as doable by 2016. Oakland’s track record doesn’t back her up. It all sounds like a bunch of fronting, and everything else I’m hearing outside of Oakland indicates that the City is not going to get the chance to prove itself. I’m not sure Oakland deserves it.

Added 2:34 PM – The Trib will have a live chat today at 3:30 to cover today’s news. Participants will include reporter Angela Woodall, BANG senior editor for community involvement Martin G. Reynolds, and the ever popular Dave Newhouse.

Added 4:05 PM – Two new pics of Coliseum City.

coliseum-city1-sm

Overhead shot has ballpark on north lots. I assume the green strip running from left to right (north-south) through complex is the easement for the sewer interceptor.

coliseum-city2-sm

Close-up shot shows hotel between ballpark and stadium

12.09.11
by

City of Oakland baseball announcement today

KQED’s Nina Thorsen passed this along to me earlier this morning:

NOON CITY OF OAKLAND TO MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. OAKLAND MAYOR JEAN QUAN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR FRED BLACKWELL EXPECTED TO ATTEND.

HEARING ROOM 4, SECOND FLOOR, OAKLAND CITY HALL, FRANK OGAWA PLAZA, OAKLAND

CONTACT: SUE PIPER (510) 238-7439 OR (510) 499-8933 CELLPHONE

Could it be the elusive EIR? An announcement in conjunction with MLB? To find out, I’ll be spending my lunch hour in Oakland.

Update 7:58 AM – The Trib has more on what appears to be a ditching of Victory Court for an alternative:

Quan is expected to discuss a plan for a redesigned Oakland Coliseum complex — Coliseum City — that could provide new homes for both the A’s and Golden State Warriors.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported Friday that the Warriors have held discussions with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Giants CEO Larry Baer about building a new arena near AT&T Park. The Warriors also met with recently Quan about building a new arena at the current Coliseum, according to the Chronicle report.

Yikes. Coliseum City? What about the poor Raiders?

Update 11:54 AM – Running late thanks to a BART delay. Mobile apps not working the way I want. Unhappy Friday so far.

12.07.11
by

Reopening an old wound

Mark Purdy’s newest column revisits a fuzzy period when the halcyon days of the Haas era were ending, and East Bay looked to bring the Raiders back to Oakland.

Reinsdorf’s statement about Oakland, meanwhile, outlines a chapter of the A’s stadium pursuit that many East Bay citizens either forget or refuse to acknowledge. The chapter dates to 1994, not long after the Haas family sold the team to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann. The two men had big plans for remodeling the Coliseum into a fine baseball-only structure. They requested a meeting with the Coliseum commission.

“Here’s what we’d like to do,” Schott told the commission, outlining his remodeling ideas.

“That’s all very nice,” the commission replied, more or less. “But we have some news. The Raiders want to come back to Oakland, and we’ve got a financing plan to make it happen that will include building a new center field addition. You can’t fight this, because the important people in Oakland want it to happen and they’ll make it difficult on you if you try to get in the way.”

Schott and Hofmann acquiesced. From that moment forward, the A’s long-term future in Oakland was probably doomed. Years later, after Wolff and partner John Fisher bought the team, Wolff did assemble a new ballpark proposal near the Coliseum site. His plan involved mixed-use redevelopment and required Oakland’s assistance to acquire the necessary land. The project went nowhere when the city did not or could not cooperate. Wolff then looked south to Fremont and spent years on another failed plan before finally settling on San Jose as his last, not first, resort.

15-17 years doesn’t seem like that long ago. I have trouble remembering all of the details. Purdy’s account sounds roughly correct, though I’m not certain about how all of the dates fit together. There was a point after Schott’s proposal when the old Coliseum Commission came to an end in a political brouhaha, to be replaced by the Coliseum Authority (see “A Cup of Joe with the Georges” for George Vukasin Sr.’s take).

Fast-forward to last year, when the Coliseum Authority worked with the Raiders again on plans to redevelop the entire Coliseum area by constructing a new football stadium to replace the to-be-demolished old Coliseum. A proposal by Wolff when he worked for Schott and Hofmann went nowhere. I’m sure MLB cares not one whit about the apparent favorable treatment the Raiders repeatedly received over the A’s. It won’t affect their decision making at all. Water under the bridge, right?

12.06.11
by

Why San Jose is NOT Miami

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the Miami Marlins ballpark deal (better late than never?). Now Field of Schemes has dug into the matter further, revealing that the investigation may be much broader than a look into how bonds were secured and pay-to-play. In fact, a mention of last year’s Deadspin exposé of have-not teams may end up being a convenient piece of evidence in the suit. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Now, there are some who will try to conflate what was done in Miami with what could happen with the A’s in San Jose. That would be terribly unfair. Not only has the City been clear about the land deal terms, it has at every milestone reinforced the notion that the final stadium deal will be approved (or not) by a public referendum. City has also published what its negotiating principles are, as shown in the resolution passed in September 2010.

WHEREAS, the Council desires to reaffirm the following previously-approved Negotiating Principles that will guide the City’s efforts in bringing a Major League Baseball stadium to San Jose:

1. No new taxes are imposed to fund ballpark-related expenditures.

2. The City must determine that the ballpark development will generate a significant economic benefit to the City and have a positive impact on City General Fund revenues.

3. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse any costs associated with construction of the ballpark or construction of any on-site infrastructure or improvements needed for the ballpark.

4. No public funds of any kind are spent to finance or reimburse any ballpark operational or maintenance costs related to activities conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team that uses the ballpark either at the ballpark or in the streets surrounding the ballpark.

5. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse the cost of any traffic control, street cleanup, emergency or security services within the ballpark site or within the streets surrounding the ballpark that are related to activities at the ballpark conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team.

6. If the property is leased for a ballpark, the baseball team must be willing, at the end of the term of the lease, either to purchase the property at fair market value or to do one of the following things at the City’s option and at no cost to the City or the Redevelopment Agency:

a. Transfer ownership of the improvements to the City or Redevelopment Agency; or
b. Demolish the improvements and clear the site to make way for other development.

7. The entity that builds or operates the ballpark must be willing, if the City deems it appropriate, to make the ballpark available to the City during baseball’s offseason for up to 10 days per year for community-related events, at no rental charge to the City.

8. The name of the baseball team must include San Jose.

Has anything changed? Nope. The important thing is that City realizes that and remains steadfast, and that Lew Wolff knows it. He’s been espousing a privately financed stadium since he assumed ownership. If he were to change his stance now or anytime in the near future, you know what will happen? He and Mayor Reed will lose whatever public support they had. It’s that simple. I like to think that in California, we’ve learned over the last decade not to be taken when it comes to stadium deals. Cisco Field will, eventually, be a test and a testament of that experience and wisdom. I believe we’ll do it right and set an example for the rest of the country and the next generation of city leaders and team owners to follow.