Category Archives: Oakland

03.25.11
by

Interesting Oakland news 3/25/11

The following nuggets were too big to relegate to the end of the last post, so they’re getting their own.

Former Oakland fire chief and San Diego city manager P. Lamont Ewell was named Interim Oakland City Administrator. That interim tag means five months, as Ewell was brought in to take care of the budget. Ewell also had a stint as Oakland’s assistant city manager. Dan Lindheim, who was placed in the City Administrator role by former mayor Ron Dellums, will stay on to handle various contract negotiations, including a Victory Court ballpark if it comes to fruition. This comes over two years after Robert Bobb was brought in as a consultant to clean up the budget mess left by his one-time successor, Deborah Edgerly. Bobb was offered the permanent position and declined it to take the helm of Detroit Public Schools. I’m not sure why Oakland’s had to bring in two people to do effectively one job twice in the last four years, but that’s gotta stop. Surely there’s someone out there who’s qualified and actually wants the Oakland City Administrator job.

Oakland is in the bidding for a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory campus. Among the locations being considered are the Oak-to-Ninth site which we’d covered here a while back, the area across the Nimitz from the Coliseum, where the Zhone Technologies building now sits, and the Kaiser Center (the office towers, not the arena). The Trib’s Cecily Burt reports:

Oakland has stiff competition. The cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Dublin, Richmond and Walnut Creek have all responded to university’s request for proposals. And UC could very well decided to scrap them all and build the second campus on land it already owns in Richmond. The university is expected to announce the finalists by mid-April, and could make the final choice in June at the earliest.

Nevertheless, Oakland’s putting out several potentially feasible sites. One of the unique wishlist items is space for a 3,000-foot long building. That would seem to rule out O29 since the length of the entire site is barely more than 3,000 feet and would require filling in the bay in a spot. However, this is a government project we’re talking about, so the environmental process could have exemptions or waivers to help it along. Other wishlist items include a desire for minimal environmental cleanup, which may be why LBL is looking beyond the brownfield albeit UC-owned Richmond Field Station.

Landing this project would be a huge win and would more than offset last year’s loss of Clorox’s research pool to Pleasanton. If Oakland doesn’t win the bid, it’ll lose jobs associated with the LBL-run National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is located near the Kaiser Center. At least 800 employees would move into the new second campus by December 2015.

How any of this fits with the ballpark is anyone’s guess, since there’s no clear cut favorite. Berkeleyside has more info on what LBL is aiming to build. The RFQ and clarifying Q&A can be found here. An internationally renowned research facility near either the Coliseum or Victory Court is bound to create some kind of halo effect, making surrounding land attractive for peripheral development. Then again, it could also hike up land values in what could be a very speculative market. Either way there’s huge potential. May the best bid win. Going back to the quoted paragraph – a decision could be made in June. Can you imagine a big, bureaucratic government agency (DoE) acting more swiftly and decisively than Major League Baseball? Say it ain’t so, Bud.

03.24.11
by

News for 3/24/11

Quick housekeeping note: If you were not aware, this blog is a self-hosted WordPress site. Ever since I moved to this platform in November 2009 after years with Blogger, I have been astonished at the rapid pace of third party development for WordPress. One feature came out today in the form of a server-side plugin called Onswipe, which can automatically reformat any WordPress site into an iPad/touch-friendly format. If you’ve used iPad apps such as Flipboard, Pulse, and Zite, you’ll feel right at home. Here’s a screenshot:

If you have an iPad, your browser (Safari) will show this version of the site automatically. I’m going to leave it up for now, but if any iPad users would prefer to go back to the original version of the site with the sidebars, I’ll heed your words. No other browsers or platforms should be affected. If you are, let me know in the comments. I’ve experimented with a mobile version of the site, but I’ve chosen not to launch it because nobody’s asked for it, so I didn’t want to penalize readers who are happy with the full site on their smartphones, etc.

Now the news:

Evan Weiner has a good overview of how the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986 impacted the ways stadiums and arenas could be financed.

Jorge Leon was interviewed by Oakland North, a three minute clip in which he manages to dismiss economic viability concerns in Oakland as easily as he does train safety.

Press Democrat columnist Robert Rubino bashes the Giants in consecutive weeks – first the fans, then the team over T-rights.

Bleacher Report’s Brandon McClintock seems to buying into a Wolff conspiracy theory – nevermind the millions spent in Fremont, the lack of interest or cooperation during the Brown administration, or the Coliseum Authority’s lack of willingness to explore a ballpark plus development at the Malibu/HomeBase site.

As for the fate of redevelopment? The legislature is steeling themselves for the fight over tax extensions. Redevelopment will have to wait.

Added 2:27 PM – Speaking of trains, the Harbor Drive Bridge, a pedestrian/bike span that goes over heavily used heavy and light rail tracks near PETCO Park in San Diego, has finally opened. It’s lovely and it only cost $12.8 million $26.8 million to construct. A Victory Court-to-Jack London Square bridge shouldn’t cost as much. It will probably cost many millions of dollars to build, and yes, it absolutely is necessary.

Picture from San Diego Union Tribune / CCDC

03.14.11
by

News for 3/14/11

Today’s hearing for Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose may set the stage for a proper settlement between the two parties over $62.9 million in redevelopment funds owed to the county. The Merc’s Karen de Sá has the details, including this bit from County Supervisor Dave Cortese, who has long been a ballpark backer:

“This is what we call a straight breach of contract, it’s not that much different than if somebody got behind on their car or house payments — you gotta settle up,” said board president Dave Cortese. “The difference is, this isn’t money for a car payment, this is money that needs to go toward all the services the county provides, everything from emergency rooms to a regional park service, libraries and courthouses. There’s no end to the hardship that would result in us being out of pocket $63 million.”

City Attorney Rick Doyle is among those who believe a deal can be reached by Wednesday, which is when the State Legislature is supposed to hear the new budget proposal.

Santa Clara is set to wrap up its work to protect RDA funds for the 49ers stadium project tomorrow.

San Diego is considering a Diridon-like transfer of 135 RDA-owned properties to the City.

Longtime NY Times baseball writer and anti-blog curmudgeon Murray Chass keeps up the weekly trickle of nationally-sourced articles pushing for the A’s to move south. This one follows a widely used AP piece last week. I sense a strategy in there… Chass’s column comes two years after a similar entry at his site, the difference this time being the appearance of Bill Neukom on the scene.

Jonah Keri’s new book about the Moneyball-style rise of the Tampa Bay Rays is out. The book is titled The Extra 2%: How Wall Street Strategies Took a Major League Baseball Team from Worst to First.

Added 3/15 1:00 AM – In Sunday’s edition of the Chronicle, Matier and Ross reported that Denver attorney Paul Jacobs was hired by Oakland to be its lead negotiator for the Victory Court project. The $455 per hour hiring, which wasn’t publicized immediately because it was done in closed session, is a big deal because Jacobs is prominent in the Western US for working on stadium deals. His biggest claims to fame are his role in putting together the resources that eventually created the Colorado Rockies, and the ballpark and land development deal around PETCO Park. As is often the case in the stadium game, Jacobs isn’t batting 1.000. More recently he worked on the aborted Pacific Commons project in Fremont and was retained by the City of Oceanside in its efforts to figure out a football stadium deal for the Chargers. One thing I’m curious about is whether or not the firm Barrett Sports Group was brought in. The last two links include mentions of Barrett Sports Group, the “other half” to Jacobs, with both hired as a package deal of sorts. Jacobs handles the real estate stuff, while BSG takes care of facility planning and financing. BSG counts A’s and Giants ownership as two of its many current or former private sector clients.

03.08.11
by

New Census data out, Bay Area growth slows

The Census Bureau has been releasing its updated state-by-state figures on a piecemeal basis. Today it was California’s turn to learn the good/bad news. Articles in The Bay Citizen and Contra Costa Times both present a similar picture of slower growth and significant demographic changes. The big three cities look like this:

  1. San Jose – pop. 945,942, up 5.7%
  2. San Francisco – pop. 805,235, up 3.7%
  3. Oakland – pop. 390,724, down 2.2%

San Jose boosters don’t get to claim the million mark for now. Maybe in 2012. It also became more Asian and less White (you’re welcome?). SF and Oakland both became more White, but the biggest surprise is Oakland’s drop in population, coupled with an exodus of part of the Black population to Contra Costa County (likely related).

What does this all mean besides the cyclical apportionment and redistricting battles? Probably not much, but I’m sure the commenters will figure out a way to make a mountain out of it.

More to come as I read further.

03.04.11
by

Ray Ratto: Ballpark Feasibility Detective

Several hours ago I listed to the latest installment of Dale Tafoya’s Athletics After Dark podcast, this one featuring Ray Ratto. Ratto thinks that the San Jose stadium plan is near death:

The “Blue Ribbon Committee” is a fraud. The territorial rights argument is a fraud. This is about one thing and one thing only, and it’s always been about this: Do the A’s have the money to put a shovel in the ground? If they had the money to put a shovel in the ground, we would’ve gone to Bud Selig and said, “We’re ready to go now.” And then Bud Selig can either tell the committee to produce a report or he could just go without it and start harvesting votes if they really want this to happen. I think it is incumbent upon the A’s to show that they’re ready to go right now and the fact that they keep saying, “well we haven’t seen the blue ribbon report…” You know what? That’s due diligence and you’re supposed to do that. If you’ve got that stuff down you’re already working at that.

…In the current economic climate, where you really need help from cities and states to get buildings done if you don’t want to go into your own personal debt. I think that the idea of a San Jose stadium is really fading. It may be dead at this point. It’s taken too long for the A’s to get what ducks they have in a row, in a row. So I think the problem here is the A’s needed more help than they let on and now they’re stuck.

The bedeviling thing about how MLB works is this black hole of information around Selig. We know a lot about what San Jose is doing, we know a decent amount about what Oakland is doing. We have Wolff and his media campaign, we have responses from Neukom and Baer. The only thing we don’t have is the really important stuff. We don’t know what Selig’s, and by extension the other owners’, motivation is. To fill that void, Ratto theorizes that money is the problem. Which it may be, none of us have a financing plan in front of us.

But unlike the territorial rights issue or the progress of environmental impact reports, there is absolutely zero data or precedent to back up Ratto’s supposition. He is quite literally going on a hunch, making the analytical leap that it must be the money and everything else is a sham.

That makes little sense when you consider the following:

  • The Giants have been spending millions on preserving T-rights to the South Bay over the last two years. They bought a majority share of the SJ Giants. They’ve been redoubling marketing efforts in the South Bay. Their stance on T-rights has gotten more hardline with the passing of time. They’ve threatened legal action – not directly, through intermediaries. No organization goes to this much trouble if they don’t believe that something major is at stake.
  • They don’t call Selig “Slug” for nothing. The man is interminably slow when it comes to big decisions and is more than willing to say the sky is green when it is obviously blue (his remarks about competitive balance are a good example). This one’s a very big one since it involves something the big market owners consider sacred. I’ve said before that Selig isn’t going to act until at least one of these cities has all of their ducks in a row. That means the site, legal/political clearances, everything. San Jose isn’t there yet. Oakland isn’t there yet. And the Grim Reaper is coming fast for cities. Plus there’s the possibility that upcoming CBA negotiations will come into play, especially because the biggest debate will be about revenue sharing. If you’re Selig, why would you lift a finger until this other stuff shakes out? I wouldn’t. I guess you can call me “Slug” too.
  • The money is a lot more “there” than “not there.” Wolff hasn’t been afraid to say when money is an issue – look at what’s been happening with the Quakes. He also hasn’t been afraid to bail on a project when it couldn’t work out financially, as was the case in Fremont and Oakland. Is it all locked in and under contract? Probably not. The timing of the hiring of Darrin Gross to the business side of the A’s may be a clue. Wolff hired David Kaval under the same auspices with the Quakes last year, and now we’re a few months away from groundbreaking. And let’s not forget that Cisco and SVLG are nothing to sneeze at.
  • This stuff takes a long time to pan out. Peter Magowan took over the Giants in spring 1993. It took four years to get a ballpark deal in place and another three to build it. Magowan never had to worry about complications like T-rights. San Jose has been handicapped by the T-rights debate, which has strung the effort out to five years to get to this point (though there were two silent years). Ratto makes it sound like either Selig or Wolff can just forcefully say, “Make it so,” and things start happening, chop-chop. That’s not reflective of how this works. It’s an ugly, dirty process, borderline corrupt (if not outright) at times.

This post is yet another case of devoting nearly 1,000 words to something that was not news, merely a theory from a columnist. Who knows, maybe Ratto will be proven right in the end? If not, I suspect that when a groundbreaking ceremony occurs at Diridon this very interview will be played over the loudspeakers, an audio version of the “Dewey beats Truman” moment. Tech writer John Gruber calls it claim chowder. I’ll just call it a hunch.

03.02.11
by

Requiem for a Finley (or Peterson complains about Wolff’s complaining)

One of the problems I have with Lew Wolff pleading his case in the media is that it gives the media plenty of fuel for columns – columns that are almost invariably anti-Wolff. Such is the case today, with a Bloomberg article followed up by a rejoinder by Tribune columnist Gary Peterson. None of it moves the conversation forward, and it creates a cloud over a team at a time when all teams should have unfiltered hope on their side. You’ve got pro-Oaklanders and most local columnists on one side and Wolff, Beane, and the national columnists on the other side. And there isn’t much room for convincing either.

Peterson has plenty of good points (the beer size scandal) and some bad ones (the non-existent big development in SJ), but he makes one rhetorical mistake in comparing Wolff to Charlie Finley. In no way is Wolff as cheap, colorful, or rebellious as the maverick Finley. MLB wouldn’t have a Finley in the current era. As much of a mixed bag as Finley was, his honeymoon in Oakland may have ended as early as April 18, 1968. That was the date of the second ever home game for the Athletics in Oakland. After a sellout, 50,000+ crowd on opening night, game two brought in a whopping 5,304, most of those probably season tickets. Out of curiosity, I did a check of every first and second home game ever played in Oakland, and the results are only marginally better, sometimes worse.

Bold/italic figures indicate doubleheaders. Blue years are in Kansas City, Green years are in Oakland. Home games played outside of Oakland were not counted. Data source: Baseball Reference

There’s a story – possibly apocryphal – of how Finley said that he made a mistake in moving the A’s to Oakland when he saw the crowd for that second game (that may be how Selig got the basis for his famous quote). To be fair, BART was under construction. On the other hand, traffic was not nearly as bad on the Nimitz, then also known as Highway 17. Seriously though, 5,304? And less for the second games the next few years? The Haas era bumped things up, but even then the A’s had two years whose second games had four-figure crowds. Increased season ticket sales this year should ensure that a <10,000 crowd won't occur this year. Still, no matter how much Oaklanders and columnists despise Lew Wolff, hate alone won't save the A's. Showing up just might. I know that many of you will be there on Opening Day. What about the following day?

02.26.11
by

Boxer leaves Oakland Planning Commission (updated: Russo pursuing Alameda City Mgr job)

Found this item about now ex-Planning Commissioner Doug Boxer in Trib scribe Angela Woodall’s Friday entry interesting:

Boxer, however, looked relaxed because it was his last meeting. He was appointed to the commission nearly six years ago and stepped down a few months shy of being termed out. His resignation wouldn’t attract much attention except he is behind Let’s Go Oakland, the group leading efforts to keep the A’s in Oakland. And he is well known as the son of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who has a condo in Jack London Square and is a client of his political consulting firm, Boxer and Associates.

Critics and people who are fighting against keeping the A’s in Oakland raised an eyebrow way up high at Boxer’s connections with developers and politicians and his seat on the commission when talk about a new ballpark near Jack London Square began heating up. Boxer dismissed the accusations — and they were accusations even though spoken in whispers by people with an agenda. And anyway, he said, the commission only makes recommendations to the City Council, which would have the ultimate say so over a ballpark.

“It’s time to go,” he said. “I will keep fighting the fight on the A’s.”

I’m not on the inside in terms of Oakland politics, so I don’t really know what to make of this. Either this frees Boxer up so that he can be a more forceful advocate for Let’s Go Oakland or he knows that nothing can be done prior to the expiration of his term so he’s bailing early (or both). Either way it’ll be interesting to see if Boxer’s public profile is raised in the coming months.

Update 7:30 PM – Almost forgot! In addition, Oakland City Attorney John Russo is a finalist for Alameda’s City Manager position. Russo, who famously threatened lawsuits against the A’s for anything from breaking the lease to censorship, may be looking to head across the estuary. He’d get a raise in Alameda and an escape from Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, which given their friction, may be a vacation for him. Should Russo get the job, it would set off a chain of events in Oakland in which his successor would have to be chosen or elected. One or more current City Council members may be interested in Russo’s job, maybe even Doug Boxer?

02.25.11
by

Emphasis, or beating a dead horse

The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser catches up with Lew Wolff on the stadium situation:

Wolff reiterated that he believes that the Bay Area should be considered like the other two-team markets, none of which have territorial rights assigned.

Wolff said that funding for any stadium approved in San Jose is in place. “We’re prepared to build the stadium,” he said. “We have the funding, the equity, the sources of revenue.”

This is the first I’ve heard or read Wolff confirm this. Obviously he’s not going to divulge details on how this would work, but we’ve made plenty of reasonably good guesses here to paint a picture.

In other news, the Kings have asked for an extension to the March 1 deadline to petition for a franchise move, presumably to Anaheim.

With both of those in mind, here’s a simple poll question.

02.23.11
by

News and Interviews for 2/23/11

Carl Guardino’s interview with Lew Wolff and Michael Crowley is now available (MP3). Nothing really new, other than one particular quote from Wolff that I took note of. When asked by a caller about whether it’s San Jose or out of the area to Sacramento or Vegas because Oakland’s not possible, Wolff replied:

I don’t agree with you that the Oakland situation is quite that bad. It’s a fanbase, but the problem is that implementing a privately financed ballpark is difficult.

So what it comes down to, as I’ve been hammering home for the last year or so, is being able to pay for the stadium. Oakland is simply behind the eight ball when it comes to corporate interests and it’s a nonstarter for seat licenses if those ever become necessary. I don’t have specific numbers to back this up, but I suspect that the club seat market is also poor. Even for fairly well-attended A’s and Raiders games, club sections are frequently empty compared to others. If building in Oakland or Fremont was based on an economic model that collapsed (real estate), what is to take its place? It brings to mind comments made by official Yankees blowhard Hank Steinbrenner regarding revenue sharing and markets (via ESPN):

“At some point, if you don’t want to worry about teams in minor markets, don’t put teams in minor markets, or don’t leave teams in minor markets if they’re truly minor,” Steinbrenner said. “Socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is never the answer.”

Say what you will about the Yankees, but there’s a reason their ticket prices are so astonishingly high: they’re privately financing $1.1 Billion of the new stadium. Which means that they’re privately financing a stadium, paying luxury tax, and contributing the lion’s share of revenue sharing into the pool. Yet they still can’t fill out a rotation. Hank probably has a nice ulcer over all of that.

Shortly after the market question, the subject matter changed to Wolff’s communications (or lack thereof) with Oakland Mayor Jean Quan. Quan, who was misidentified as the first Asian American mayor of a major US city in Baseball Oakland’s otherwise good interview (Norm Mineta was San Jose’s mayor 40 years ago), has mentioned that she hasn’t spoken to Wolff since his aborted Coliseum North plan, which Wolff himself confirmed. Now, they can both play political points with each of their respective bases by continuing to point this out, or they can actually choose to have a real conversation. Not like anyone’s stopping either of them. And for those of you who say, “so-and-so should act first,” grow up. It doesn’t matter.

Further on in the Quan interview, she suggests that redevelopment is in a much more secure position than portrayed by others who may be signaling alarms (including me), simply due to the legal trouble the state would face in dismantling it. That may be the case, but it isn’t stopping cities and counties which have real, ready-to-go projects from taking the necessary measures to protect their plans. In Oakland’s case, Victory Court isn’t anywhere near ready-to-go, so committing resources to it with so much up in the air is certainly premature. I just have a hard time believing that any city in this era can act on a hair trigger. The process is long and arduous, and if you’ve been reading this blog more than a year you need no further reminders of that.

One thing that puzzles me is that Bud Selig’s committee is working in a silo with Oakland. It is doing the same with San Jose. It is apparently not communicating any of this to Wolff. Why not? Shouldn’t there be some sharing of information to get the best ideas to the forefront? It’s not like we’re dealing with multiple teams competing for the same stadium. It’s the same team regardless of which city is picked. It doesn’t make much sense.

In other news, Santa Clara unanimously approved a resolution to create a stadium authority for the 49ers.

According to BoSox president Larry Lucchino, Fenway Park is expected to stand another 40-50 years. (Well, as long as the climactic scene in some recent movie set in Boston doesn’t happen frequently.)

Over the weekend there was some hubbub about a rough rendering of the Quakes stadium, previously discarded and sent to the City of San Jose for code verification as part of its permits process, showing up on the interwebs. To which I say, Wow. Just wow.

Going back to the Wolff interview for a second, I noticed that the show was sponsored in part by construction firm Webcor Builders. Could they be trying to get in good on the stadium construction tip? They are handling the work at Cal’s Memorial Stadium. Devcon has been involved with the 49ers’ plans and the expansion of Buck Shaw Stadium at SCU.

More on Wolff regarding the A’s future regular season and spring training homes from MLB.com writer Barry M. Bloom.

Also, Ken Rosenthal’s argument against contraction seems familiar.

02.22.11
by

Wolff on Guardino’s KLIV radio show tonight

As Santa Clara prepares to “finalize” its stadium deal, Lew Wolff will be on SVLG head Carl Guardino’s “The CEO Show” tonight on KLIV (AM 1590). Wolff’s been making the media rounds every so often, though the tone of this interview should be different from Rick Tittle’s excellent work from two weeks ago. Last September SVLG officially came out in support of an A’s move to San Jose, and sent a letter to Bud Selig urging him to make it happen.

Update 7:05 PM – Interesting, Mike Crowley is on with Wolff.

7:17 PM – Wolff answering a caller’s question about Oakland’s issues with attendance and retaining a team: “I don’t think the situation in Oakland is that bad as far as the fanbase. The difficulty is in putting together a privately financed stadium.“

7:27 PM – Wolff talks about Cisco’s technology push, which uses concepts seen in Minority Report, probably via near field communication.

7:29 PM – If you’re thinking the callers so far are all ringers, they are. Except maybe one.

7:30 PM – About the Quakes and the $60 million investment for the stadium there: “$100 million for 17 homes games a season is a bit of a reach.“

7:35 PM – Time to build the ballpark: 30 months, assuming (the A’s) don’t get sued, as long as we get the process going.

One of the interesting asides from the interview came in Guardino’s 10 questions segment. Asked what was his favorite book, Wolff replied that it was an out-of-print autobiography of developer William Zeckendorf, who built Century City in Los Angeles and owned the land on which the UN headquarters in New York would eventually be built. As is often the case with many CEOs, he makes his employees read his favorite book.