Category Archives: Oakland

05.13.11
by

Wolff on Monty Show interview is up (updated with notes)

If you didn’t get a chance to listen to Lew Wolff on The Monty Show at 8, the good people at Sports Radio 95.7 got the MP3 version out in a hurry. Download it and give it a listen. Then come back here and comment away.

My thoughts:

I think we actually got some new insight into how MLB’s panel is operating. Wolff said that the committee hasn’t contacted him about Victory Court or any other Oakland option. Combine that with the zero communication between Wolff and the City of Oakland, and it has me wondering if the committee is supposed to be keeping everyone at arms length. While Victory Court is being evaluated and the EIR process is happening (note the updated counter on the right) any additional talks among the parties would be premature at best. Wolff is only going to act based on the panel’s recommendations and Selig’s actions. I don’t think that’s the way this should be progressing, but that appears to be the game.

As Jeffrey pointed out, the panel is looking at financing, which is the make-or-break issue for Oakland. Oakland can minimize site and infrastructure costs by reducing footprint (and needed parcel buys) and limiting new parking construction cost, both of which have been done in San Jose. I figure panel is not going to recommend that Wolff builds at Victory Court unless the financing pencils out, because MLB is not going to put a team’s ownership in a bad debt position just to satiate local critics. For reasons explained previously, it’s a bad assumption to think that the money in San Jose is easily transferable to Oakland.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing redevelopment saga will factor in. If SB 286 passes and both Oakland and San Jose require votes for their stadium projects, how would that affect the panel’s perspective? Adding a vote requirement complicate the timeline for Oakland, since it’s not a given that they’ll be able to line up EIR certification and ballot deadline perfectly. Consider the following timeline:

  • SB 286 passes and is signed into law by Governor Brown (as opposed to scrapping redevelopment altogether) this June.
  • Victory Court Draft EIR emerges, also in June. (hypothetical date)
  • 60-day review and comment period puts us in August.
  • EIR staff takes another 3 months to respond to questions and comments. That puts us in November.
  • Final EIR is distributed in December.
  • Final EIR comment period is 45-60 days, puts us at February 2012.
  • Currently the 2012 primary is scheduled for February 7, though a bill (AB 80) is working its way through the legislature that might push the date back to June. If it passes, Oakland could get its vote in June. If not, November or a special election/vote-by-mail.
  • That puts a Victory Court opening day at 2016 unless Oakland is simultaneously doing additional site acquisition, which Mayor Quan has indicated they aren’t. It also messes with the Raiders’ new Coliseum project because the A’s would have to play at the current Coliseum through 2015. The Raiders’ stadium would also require its own vote. Now that’s tangled.

The redevelopment stuff wasn’t discussed in the Wolff interview, but it may provide insight into how the panel is doing its work. As long as these pieces keep moving and the earth shifts, it’s going to be hard to make a decision until everything settles.

Sidebar: Wolff started the interview by plugging the film Jews and Baseball: An American Love Story, which is playing as part of the Silicon Valley Jewish Film Festival. The film will play at the Camera 3 theater at 7 PM. After the showing there will be panel with Wolff, retired player Shawn Green, and A’s play-by-play man Ken Korach as the moderator.

05.03.11
by

New redevelopment bill SB 286 introduced (updated)

State Senator Rod Wright (D-Inglewood) introduced a “compromise” redevelopment bill last week. SB 286 is intended to deal with the excesses of current redevelopment by introducing new levels of oversight, including regular audits of redevelopment agencies. The agencies themselves would remain largely intact, but they face new restrictions on what specific types of projects they could take on. A big one is the elimination of projects on currently non-urbanized parcel five acres or larger in size. Simply put, all projects have to be done on infill land. Development on “blighted” farmland and open space would be verboten. Direct assistance also couldn’t be provided to casinos, race tracks, speedways, and golf courses. And there’s one extremely important new rule related to sports facilities.

SEC. 7. Section 33426.5 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
33426.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 33391, 33430, 33433, and 33445, or any other provision of this part, an agency shall not provide any form of direct assistance to the following:
…
(e) A development or business, for the acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation, or replacement of property that is or would be used for a stadium, coliseum, arena, ballpark or other sports facility that is intended for use by a professional sports franchise unless the proposed assistance or another component of the financing for the proposed project is submitted to the electorate that resides in the territorial jurisdiction of the agency providing assistance, and is approved by a majority of the voters voting on the proposed development.

The upshot is that every stadium or arena project throughout the state would require a vote if the bill is passed. In San Jose that’s not such a big deal because a vote is required per the city charter. Now everything from LA’s Farmers Field to Oakland’s Victory Court to Sacramento’s Kings-saving railyards arena would automatically trigger referenda. If it’s a city project, city voters would have to approve. If it’s a county project, county voters would have to approve.

Keep in mind that the alternative, as we know it right now, is the complete elimination of redevelopment as dreamed by Governor Jerry Brown, and redevelopment’s replacement by successor agencies with an even smaller scope and breadth of powers than specified in SB 286. Furthermore, SB 286 is sponsored by the pro-redevelopment League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association. While the bill could undergo changes in committee, it’s unlikely that the sports facilities clause will see a big change since a reversal would strike at the heart of the bill’s intent, weakening the bill in the process.

So, that talking point that the Oakland-only crowd has but putting out about not needing a vote in The Town? Might have been a little premature about that one.

Updated 3:04 PM – Governor Brown is pushing AB 101, which would kill all redevelopment agencies and cap borrowing as of July 1. The League of California Cities has said the bill is unconstitutional. That makes it SB 286 vs. AB 101 for the future of redevelopment. It’s possible that one or both don’t make it out of committee. It’ll be interesting to see if they end up as competing ballot initiatives with poison pills.

04.27.11
by

Strength in numbers

Since Let’s Go Oakland and the City of Oakland made their pitch to Bud Selig’s panel last year, there has been a curious talking point emerging from that camp, “We have enough corporate support.” The argument is that Oakland’s geographic placement between San Francisco and the growing East Bay (if not Oakland) makes it well suited to capture corporate clients for premium seating and sponsorships. To that end they’ve listed about two dozen companies, many of whom are not headquartered in the East Bay, who could sign on with a new Victory Court ballpark. It sounds reasonable on the surface. Scratch that surface a little and it looks a little weak.

For Oakland there is a “checkbox” problem. Oakland partisans frequently cite Clorox, Kaiser Permanente, Dreyer’s, and Cost Plus, plus Chevron if they extend the reach a bit. If Oakland has Cost Plus and maybe Ross Stores, San Jose has Orchard Supply Hardware and Fry’s Electronics – and those latter two companies have proven track records sponsoring sports in the South Bay. These are the low hanging fruit of the corporate game. Every team has official sponsors and partners for which there are exclusive deals. For instance, Kaiser Permanente would be a fantastic official health provider/insurance of the A’s and the new ballpark. It is huge, national, and is a major presence throughout the Bay Area. However, there are multiple available substitutes who would love to have regional market exposure, yet the exclusivity part restricts them to radio or something else. Right now the A’s have Washington Hospital Healthcare System, a Fremont-based partner whose deal goes back to the Pacific Commons concept days. Maybe the price of such a sponsorship will be too high to renew with a new ballpark, maybe the location (if it isn’t Fremont) won’t prove attractive given Washington Hospital being Fremont only. If Kaiser doesn’t sponsor Cisco Field it leaves a competitive opportunity for one of the other large HMO’s (PacifiCare, Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, etc.) to swoop right in, along with another hospital network.

Along the same lines, there are numerous other official sponsors who should be there regardless of where the ballpark is. Chevron signed on with the A’s a couple years ago after several years with Valero instead. There will be an official fuel sponsor regardless. There will also be an official soft drink provider (Pepsi), beer (Budweiser), broadband provider (Comcast), mobile phone carrier (Verizon), and newspaper (BANG). These are the easy gets because in many cases there are other related deals in place, such as CSN’s broadcast rights or Pepsi’s pouring rights. Chevron could choose not to go with a San Jose ballpark, but that risks losing exposure in the company’s backyard.

It’s when you get past the checkbox deals that it starts to become difficult. It’s not going to be hard for the A’s to get those deals above. Nine-figure naming rights deals are hard. Suite deals can be challenging, especially if they don’t involve one of the vaunted sponsorship slots. That is where the comparison between what Oakland and the rest of the East Bay can muster up vs. what San Jose and Silicon Valley can provide ends.

The second problem is one of competition. The team will need to do more than just sign Company X to some deal. They need to extract maximum dollars upfront to pay down the large debt service that will come with new digs. That means that getting 32 or 33 companies, as Doug Boxer suggested, isn’t enough. There needs to be a real market situation that can propel those revenues. Without that demand and those commitments in place it’ll be harder to put together the financing piece. If you look at SVLG’s letter from last September, you see a lot of competitors in the same industries signing on. Wells Fargo and Bank of America. Cisco and Brocade. HP and IBM. Three different venture capital firms. Numerous competing chip manufacturers. It’s creating a situation where there have to be winners and losers, and that’s good because it should create mini bidding wars. That’s what you want – no, need – if you’re MLB and the A’s and you have $25-30 million in debt service every year.

The Mercury News has an index of local publicly traded companies called the Silicon Valley 150. The combined market cap for those 150 companies is $1.55 trillion, and well over $1 trillion just for the top 50. The list below (all figures FY 2010) omits companies outside of Santa Clara County and nearly every company beyond #60, yet it remains impressive.

There are some companies who I wouldn’t expect to be involved in a major way with Cisco Field, such as Google and Apple. Neither company has done much in the past in terms of sports sponsorships, and their focus tends to be global instead of local. Maybe they’ll get a suite or club seats to use as employee perks, maybe not. Whatever they do, it’s reassuring to know that so many other companies stand ready to fill in the gap. Interestingly, many of the companies will have a motivation that only applies to the Valley and has since the dot-com boom. Top tier software engineers are in extremely short supply, and competition is so fierce among various tech companies that they are throwing crazy money at the so-called rock stars of the industry – not just to sign, but to stay. The market has effectively exploded after a DoJ investigation that uncovered a “no poaching” gentleman’s agreement among the biggest, most well funded tech companies. Now that there are no restrictions, self imposed or otherwise, the market for engineers and C-level talent is unfettered and extremely competitive. The billboards along Highway 101 aren’t selling for millions as they did in the 90’s, but they still serve an important purpose for tech companies looking to catch the attention of talent. Signage at HP Pavilion and commercials on Sharks broadcasts serve the same purpose. Even now, Rambus has an aggressive ad campaign running during Sharks games on CSN California. Rambus doesn’t sell anything to consumers. It barely sells things to companies. Much of Rambus’ revenue comes from patent licensing and awards from lawsuits against patent violators. What the company wants is new engineers to create the next big advance in memory technology that could create the next patent licensing gravy train. Those engineers are predominantly in the Valley.

Multiply Rambus’ efforts by 100 and you have the potential for Cisco Field. The A’s are well positioned to take advantage, as they could lock a high bidder into a 10-year deal if the market is competitive enough. Those long-term agreements are what made China Basin possible. It’s what Oakland will need to get a ballpark built, since they and we know that the A’s would have to pay for it in the end. For Oakland it’s a much bigger challenge because its accessibility from the Valley and the Peninsula is not great and will be worse if they move to Downtown Oakland. Oakland simply cannot replicate those market and network effects. There are burgeoning industries, such as green tech, where several Oakland companies are out in front. Unfortunately, few of those companies are as yet profitable and many require massive government subsidies to keep them going, which is not a bad thing for the nation moving forward towards energy independence but puts those companies in a position where bidding wars for suites and signage doesn’t make much sense. Another indicator is media coverage. The East Bay Business Times, which contacted me almost six years ago shortly after this blog was started, folded in 2008 and was merged with the SF Business Times. Sister publication San Jose/Silicon Valley Business Journal remains in print and relevant, and is one of the companies in the SVLG letter.

Let’s be clear. Oakland and surrounding East Bay cities have corporate strength. Some of it is homegrown, some of it is from subsidiaries of larger companies. To compete with the South Bay it will need every bit of that strength. Since we don’t know what LGO’s list of commitments consists of, we can’t say whether it makes Victory Court more or less feasible. As long as the there is such a vast disparity between the East Bay and the South Bay, questions about that feasibility will linger, fair or not. The campaign needs to be much more than “We’ve got enough.” Because what you consider enough may not actually be enough for those who make the loans and the others who have to pay them off. Sacramento put together $10 million in commitments in the span of a few weeks. Sacramento is coming strong. That’s what needs to be done to convince MLB that Oakland can work in the long run. That’s not hate. That’s reality.

04.25.11
by

Nuggets from the Boxer and Reed interviews

I recorded the two interviews using TuneIn Radio (really worth getting on your smartphone platform of choice), so I had a chance to listen to them again. I picked up on a few things that I thought would be interesting to discuss. First, the Boxer portion.

  • Boxer mentioned that the suite requirement for Victory Court was 32-33 boxes, not 40 (which is what Wolff is aiming for). Perhaps this would explain why the capacity is greater (39,000), to make up for the reduced suite requirement. Maybe this is a realization of how difficult it is to sell suites in the East Bay with the corporate environment.
  • Since Boxer left Oakland’s Planning Commission in February, he hasn’t been as plugged in regarding the EIR process. That’s a shame when you consider that there’s such a vacuum when it comes to real information right now.
  • Townsend was bit miffed when he tried to get Oakland Mayor Jean Quan on for the segment. Her office referred him to Boxer instead. That’s not to say that Boxer wasn’t good – he was, especially because he talked for an hour – but it shows there’s a disconnect. They want to say that they’re operating within a gag order, but that gag order should be extended to San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, so why was he available while Quan wasn’t?
  • People jumped on Boxer for misstating attendance and Townsend for naming the wrong company for the ballpark, to which I say, “STOP.” None of that matters. You’re getting distracted by the most insignificant details.
  • The Coliseum has been effectively deepsixed as any kind of ballpark site by MLB.
  • Boxer admitted that if redevelopment goes away, getting the plan going would be very challenging. He notes that some development powers should be enshrined in a successor agency, though it’s unclear how far-reaching those powers would be. What’s going for Oakland is that CEDA/ORA has bonding capacity for further land acquisitions and infrastructure improvements.
  • Boxer also mentioned that the EIR process takes the better part of a year to complete. While he was probably referring to the entire process (it usually takes longer), a draft shouldn’t take anywhere near that long.
  • Boxer alleges that Schott/Hofmann didn’t pursue the Uptown site because if they committed to it, they feared that the franchise’s value would drop. Curious. Update: The franchise value would have dropped because the team would have been less attractive if it were locked into a new stadium.
  • Boxer mentions in passing that Wolff may have violated the contract with the Coliseum Authority by talking to San Jose in the past. That again? If that’s a problem, then just sue already, stop talking about it and do it. Before John Russo escapes to Alameda.

Now for the Reed segment, which was much shorter.

  • Reed hasn’t had any direct contact with Bud Selig. He and his team have been working solely through Selig’s committee. Reed thinks the work is finished, though it’s hard to tell at this point.
  • As in recent print interviews, Reed is palpably frustrated.
  • Reed’s not giving up on the ballpark as long as Wolff is optimistic.
  • No word on whether Reed would try for this November’s election. I’m guess no unless word comes down from on high.
  • Reed referred to the new joint powers authority (San Jose Diridon Development Authority) as carrying on the ballpark development work as SJRA shrinks or disappears.

What did we learn today? Not much. There will be some pro-Oakland folks who are happy that Boxer was on for an hour, which was good. However, the fact that no new information came out was highly disappointing. Hope can’t live on words alone.

P.S. Really great work by Chris Townsend today. There’s been more stadium talk in the last week than in the last five years on all of the sports and talk radio stations combined.

04.25.11
by

Boxer, Reed on with Townie Monday

As mentioned in the previous post, there will be stadium talk on Monday on The Chris Townsend Show. It kicks off with Let’s Go Oakland’s Doug Boxer from 1-2 PM. That’ll be followed up by a presumably non-stadium segment with Jose Canseco. At 2:45, San Jose mayor Chuck Reed will be on. Boxer will be taking questions from callers, which will be great. It gives him an opportunity to feed the Oakland faithful with news, hopefully about a forthcoming Draft EIR, even though most of them won’t read it (most of the people in San Jose didn’t read theirs either). I won’t be calling in, but if you are and you need some ideas for questions, here are a quick ten:

  1. When will the Draft EIR be released/distributed?
  2. Are there any great renderings, illustrations or site plans to accompany the EIR?
  3. How long do you think it’ll take to get the EIR approved and certified?
  4. Are there any alternate ballpark sites in the EIR besides Victory Court?
  5. Will there be an alternative that only includes land up to Fallon Street, or is it still everything west to Oak Street?
  6. Have any additional Victory Court parcels been acquired yet?
  7. Is the plan to have the ballpark face the Estuary (SE), Lake Merritt (NE), or Downtown (N)?
  8. Why is the plan to have 39,000 seats?
  9. We know that you’ve been working with MLB. Has there been any communication with the A’s and Lew Wolff? If not, is that by design?
  10. What do you think of what’s happening in Sacramento with the Kings right now?

I’m sure you readers can come up with plenty more good questions. Can’t wait for Townie to do his thing.

04.24.11
by

Cities Simpatico

Holy Week finds Oakland and Sacramento in similarly uncomfortable places. The new sports radio station (95.7 FM) has been talking about the A’s stadium fate all week, and that will only continue on Monday when Chris Townsend interviews both Doug Boxer and Chuck Reed during the first hour. A death watch has hovered over Sacramento since the Kings’ last regular season game of the season ten days ago. Both cities have had highly active grassroots groups rally the resources to get their respective higher powers (MLB/NBA) to give their homes another shot, perhaps their last. So it may be fitting that during a religious week, the Kings appear to be resurrected – if for a year.

As the process for both the Kings and A’s drags out, comparisons will be made between the teams, cities, owners, and fanbases. The easy (and somewhat lazy) thing for the media to do would be to lump them in together. To get a better read on where either team might end up down the road, it’s important to highlight the similarities and differences between each team’s current predicament.

What’s similar

Admittedly, this is the easy part. Both the A’s and Kings play in outdated venues, the histories of which have been well documented here and elsewhere. Both cities have somewhat unfair reputations as not being particularly corporate-rich and both are government towns. Oakland is the county seat and it has the Port, UC, MTC, and BART. Sacramento has the Capitol and numerous agencies associated with it. Both cities have been hit by crushing unemployment. There’s a sense that either team’s ownership group hasn’t exactly given 100% effort towards a new venue in their respective home cities. Lew Wolff’s last try in Oakland was in 2006 (Coliseum North), and the Maloof brothers infamously dropped support for a railyards arena in the middle of the campaign – also in 2006. Both venues’ financing plans involved the selling of land entitlements. Those plans crumbled in the wake of the real estate market collapse. While neither party has verbalized it, it’s that collapse that has caused Wolff and the Maloofs to have doubts about any financing plan in Oakland or Sacramento. Now nearly five years later, Wolff is looking 40 miles south whereas the Maloofs are looking 400 miles south.

What’s different

This stuff is harder to explain, but it gets at the heart of the problem. Most of this it is inside baseball, making it hard to pin down or easily explain away. Unfortunately the differences are more likely to be responsible for what eventually happens than anything else.

  • Markets. The Kings would be moving out of the Sacramento market (2.1 million population) which it has to itself in order to inhabit Orange County, part of the Greater LA market (18 million). LA already has six major league teams. The A’s would move within the Bay Area market, which would preserve TV and radio presence but cause upheaval among available fans for attendance and sponsorships.
  • Venues. While both the Oakland Coliseum and ARCO Arena are antiquated, that’s where the similarities end. The Coliseum is owned by the City of Oakland and Alameda County. ARCO Arena is owned by the Maloofs. That’s an important distinction because of who to “blame” regarding the state of those venues. The Coliseum has received few upgrades and limited maintenance since the Raiders came back, thanks in part to very limited public funds. Kings fans have targeted the Maloofs due to their seeming neglect of their asset.
  • Team ownership styles. The Maloofs saw fit put a well-paid team on the court as long as they were competitive, going over the NBA’s salary cap on a regular basis during the glory years (1998-2004). Ticket prices were in the upper half of the league to help pay the bills. The brothers’ business fortunes have taken a tumble, which has caused them to field low payroll teams filled largely with young players. Wolff has been practicing that philosophy for years with Billy Beane at the helm, though payroll for the A’s more a function of team revenue than anything else. Thanks to frequent discounting, A’s tickets are among the cheapest in MLB.
  • Television complications. It is believed that the Maloofs are going to Anaheim lured in part by much greater television revenues. In Sacramento, they’ve been getting $11 million from CSN California, one of the lowest annual deals in the NBA. Earlier this week officials from CSNCA have suggested that they would bump up that number if the Kings were to stay, though they didn’t say how much. As part of the move, the Kings would be on Henry Samueli-owned KDOC for a year until the Lakers’ deal with Fox Sports ends, then that slot would be available. The KDOC deal is worth $20 million for the year. However, LA’s pre-existing NBA teams, the Lakers and Clippers, object to the move on the grounds that they’ll be negatively impacted. In the Lakers’ case, they could lose up to 10% of their newly inked deal with Time Warner. That deal could provide as much as $5 billion over 25 years, and would take a hit if a third team such as the Kings/Royals played in the market. Considering the opportunity cost for the league, there’s now a legitimate question of whether new TV revenue in SoCal for the Kings/Royals makes up for that lost revenue for the Lakers.
  • Antitrust exemption. MLB’s longstanding exemption allows the commissioner to control all franchise moves, which has made baseball the major sport with the fewest moves in the modern era. The NBA has no such protection, which has allowed nine franchises to move since 1972. During the same period MLB has only moved one franchise, the Expos to DC, and that was orchestrated by Bud Selig. Whatever the NBA decides, Stern doesn’t have to worry about actions that may set a precedent since Stern’s already been through it. The possibility of setting a precedent with the owners seems to paralyze Selig, who was once an owner and wants to remain buddy-buddy with the owners. Stern may be the opposite in that he’s often received criticism that he’s more supportive of the players – specifically the stars – than the owners.
  • Timeline. Selig’s panel has been deliberating for two years with no end in sight. In the last few days, David Stern and his committee have essentially set a real end date to the process, March 2012 – if the Kings are stay in Sacramento as has been reported. If the move is approved, the moving trucks will be at ARCO faster than you can say “Mayflower.” The Maloofs have pushed out a deadline to apply for the move, but that application and the decision making process are not expected to drag out for very long.
  • Sales pitch. Let’s Go Oakland may have gotten some attention with its $500k in pledges last summer, but that’s nothing compared to what Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson has put together. Working with Denver consultancy ICON Group and Sacramento-area civic and business leaders, Johnson has gotten $10 million in commitments to keep the Kings in town. Johnson also may have dazzled the NBA’s brass in a way only a young upstart who isn’t a career politician and had a lengthy career as an All Star point guard can do. San Jose’s sales pitch has been glacial, minimal, and could be boiled down to a MS Project chart with milestones. Anaheim’s pitch has been rushed to the point of incoherence.

At this point, it’s all up for grabs for both teams, all of the cities, all of the owners. MLB and the NBA have upcoming collective bargaining sessions, though MLB’s should be less contentious. It’s hard enough to know how all of this will turn out if there weren’t a ton of external factors. Many think that the simplest path is to have money rule the day, and that cities like Oakland and Sacramento haven’t a chance. Hardcore fans hold out hope for a white knight like Ron Burkle or Larry Ellison to save the day. There’a a well-earned feeling of solidarity between Oaklanders and Sacramentans, with some being fans of both the Kings and A’s. Whatever happens, we’ll give it a thorough look. Just sit back and buckle your seat belt. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

04.19.11
by

Isaac and Suke to take ballpark issue on today

Listening to the end of the Monty show, Isaac and Suke came on to tease that they were going to talak ballpark during some part of their 10-1 slot. Monty weighed as an Oakland-backer, saying that the team won’t be the same. Isaac talked about the difficult choices to be made about revenue for the future. Should be interesting, coming up.

Update 10:50 – Awesome call Jeffrey. BTW, still no Victory Court EIR.

Update 11:40 – I’ve liked the discussion so far. Isaac and Suke admittedly don’t know everything about the subject, but they’re giving everyone a shot to give their two cents. If they have people going with the crazy talk on the station’s Facebook page like “These guys are being paid by Wolff” they’re covering it well. It’s not an easy topic to cover and people tend to act more from emotion than pragmatism. Also – good call about the impact of redevelopment. It’s the lengthiest discussion on the radio about the A’s stadium issue ever, and I couldn’t be more pleased. Also, thanks for the plugs callers.

04.14.11
by

Waiting for the Victory Court EIR

Yesterday I sent an email to Oakland CEDA Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning, Eric Angstadt, asking for an update on the Victory Court Draft EIR. Angstadt has been the point man for the project. So far I haven’t received a response. Now it’s nice that we’ve got the regular season going to get our minds and eyes focused on the field instead of off, but someone had to ask. It’s the middle of April and there’s no word on when it’ll be released. Hopefully it’ll be soon. I’m dying to look at it, and I’m sure that pro-Oaklanders want something – anything – to help keep the December momentum going.

If you’re interested, click the link above and send in a request.

04.02.11
by

It’s up to the fans

Trib reporter Angela Woodall’s writeup of the Keep the A’s in Oakland tailgate ends with the following quote by Let’s Go Oakland’s Doug Boxer:

“Now it’s up to the fans.”

He’s absolutely right. It is up to the fans. It has always been up to the fans. If the A’s had 34,000 – heck, 30,000 – filled seats every night, there would be no question as to whether or not the A’s could and should stay in Oakland. It’s really that simple. 30,000 a night would show that there were enough season tickets, walkup sales, suite and club buys to make it work. That is the challenge. That is why the question exists.

We can go on all day and night about ownership, or marketing, or the stadium, or a roster without huge stars. What about the fact that the team we love is the Oakland Athletics? Our team. Our passion, which for me has been for 30 years, for the guy sitting next to me tonight at least a decade more. If – and this is a big if – MLB’s process is legitimate, there’s a very simple way to prove that the fanbase here is that rabid.

I’ll gladly trade a little elbow room for some butts in seats. After all, there’s no passion in an empty chair.

03.29.11
by

Baseball Season means it’s time for Homeroom

Updated 7:00 PM – The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has a Q&A on the A’s-to-San Jose effort.

I went to the A’s ticket office to pick up some extra seats for this weekend, and while I was there, I figured I’d check out a little eatery I’d heard about, Homeroom. Located at 400 40th Street in the Temescal neighborhood, Homeroom is only a few blocks east of the MacArthur BART station and a few more blocks from Fenton’s Creamery.

Homeroom’s thing is Mac ‘n Cheese. As American as baseball or apple pie, mac ‘n cheese is perhaps the ultimate comfort food, and is clearly my favorite American food. When I heard that a restaurant dedicated to serving up the dish was opening in Oakland, I squealed like a little girl. Today just happened to be a day I could partake in cheesy goodness, so off I went.

The decor is reminiscent of an elementary school classroom, with a wall-sized chalkboard in the back. Tables are made out of refinished remnants of old gymnasium bleachers, a huge plus in my book.

Seeing that this was my first visit, I chose the Classic, which is the simple Cheddar-based version with no toppings. Breadcrumbs are great from a textural standpoint but don’t impart much flavor, and bacon, frankly, is a cheat. Just about anything can be improved with bacon, so I wanted to see what the dish was like without embellishment. Mac n’ Cheese is generally a vegetarian dish, but they also had a vegan option and just about everything can be ordered gluten free.

The menu has both wine and beer pairing suggestions. The proprietors are apparently big beer coinnoisseurs, since they do occasional beer-food events and had spent some time puttin together the solid, but not exceptionally long list of beers. I asked for a Racer 5 from Bear Republic, but it was out and they had Acme IPA from North Coast instead. I went for the suggested beer for the Classic, Lost Coast’s Downtown Brown, which inevitably was a very good idea.

Texture is everyting when it comes to mac ‘n cheese. I wasn’t disappointed. Sharp, molten cheddar had the perfect balance of heft and creaminess. Portion size at $7.50 was just right. The brown ale took the edge off the sharpness. Lather, rinse, repeat. Dessert was a homemade oreo cookie, sweet but not cloying. Total bill was a shade north of $18, not including tip. I went mid-afternoon, hoping to avoid the reportedly long lines.

It’s too bad the Broadway Auto Row concept never gained traction, either 4 years ago when I sketched it out or last year when Let’s Go Oakland was looking at sites. Homeroom and Fenton’s would be great for families attending a day weekend game to simply walk over to these establishments. With some luck, Homeroom will continue its early success and attain the kind of longevity experienced at Fenton’s. Even though it’s a ways from the Coliseum and not within walking distance of Victory Court, Homeroom is worth a visit. Perhaps not everyday as you were mandated in grade school, but once in a while, maybe every other homestand. How else are you going to try the various great mac ‘n cheese variations they have on hand?