Category Archives: Oakland

12.07.10
by

Slick Willie strikes again

Matier and Ross report that the Oakland City Council met last week, around the time of the planning commission hearing, to figure out how much money to devote to the EIR. While they won’t authorize the full amount, they’ll at least move ahead with a traffic study, which according to comments at the hearing, is long overdue. Perhaps this is a good time for Oakland tell MLB to put up some money. After all, if MLB is encouraging Oakland’s efforts, why not put its money where its mouth is? $500k to help take care of the costs is a drop in the bucket for the Commissioner, and as alluded to earlier, a similar amount to what MLB is offering San Jose for that city’s special election.

But the juiciest piece of the day comes in the form of a bait-and-switch done to Jed York by Willie Brown. Apparently the two were supposed to meet for lunch at a San Francisco restaurant, but when York arrived the reservation wasn’t under Brown’s name. Instead it was under Dianne Feinstein’s name. Feinstein, who’s been in office longer than York has been alive, met with the 49ers scion and both explained their relative positions. York agreed to meet with Gavin Newsom, though it’s not known what if any headway was made.

Somehow, I wouldn’t expect Lew Wolff to get caught in such a situation.

12.06.10
by

Are you there Bud? It’s me, Jeffrey

Writing about and obsessing over the stadium saga is enough to make anyone lose their religion. Still, sometimes there’s a little glimmer that shows that even those on high are at least paying attention to us.

Our own editor-at-large took to sending a missive to one A. H. “Bud” Selig on Sunday, asking for some clarity on the situation. The letter was posted on Athletics Nation. Here’s the final plea:

On the eve of your organizations annual Winter Meetings I ask that you make the case for one of the two scenarios. If the local media is to be believed, your stadium panel has done a thorough and exhaustive search that has considered timing, financing, revenue impacts, traffic, political support, and even the height of light towers and the path of airplanes. There are no more angles to explore. No new rocks to turn over. It all comes down to you and your willingness to make either Bill Neukom or Lew Wolff, and their respective partners, miffed. Please do so at some point in the next two days so we can all move on from this unnecessary purgatory.

While it looks for the moment as if those prayers won’t get answered, at least Jeffrey got a reply from someone else in know, in this case Lew Wolff. For those who aren’t aware, Wolff reads AN and this blog (not so sure about all of the comments), mostly to get a read on how the fans are feeling about all matters Athletics – especially the ballpark stuff. Will we get some kind of judgment in the next week or ten? I have no clue. Regardless, it’s good to know that someone’s noticing the little guy. Kudos, Jeffrey, as always.

12.05.10
by

A big hedge

As part of Susan Slusser’s preview of next week’s owner’s meetings in Orlando, there’s a couple of paragraphs devoted to the stadium situation.

There has been speculation that Major League Baseball’s committee examining the A’s stadium might issue its findings during the meetings, but team owner Lew Wolff said that he does not believe that will be the case, though an announcement should come soon. “All we want is a yes or a no,” Wolff said of efforts to get approval for a stadium in San Jose.

So an announcement should come soon, but not next week. Calgon, take me away!

A year ago, I wrote about three options that MLB could pursue regarding the A’s. They could either A) approve a move south, B) deny the move, or C) give Oakland one more shot with a deadline. Given the recent news on Oakland’s front, such as it is (and the lack of news on MLB’s part), option C would appear to have been the choice, in retrospect. Whether Oakland is getting a full shot is unclear, they’ve gotten at the very least a year. Yet there are plenty of things that don’t seem to fit that make me wonder what the real endgame is here.

Earlier in the fall, there were murmurs of a pending decision, which South Bay boosters have held onto ever since. Wolff’s retreat from that position in Slusser’s piece indicates that something may have changed, but to what extent? Wolff has held firm to wanting a “yes or no” from Selig, while the boosters have framed the South Bay as a chance to “explore” the territory. MLB appears to be in communication with both San Jose and Oakland city governments, giving the whole affair the appearance of a horse race.

If you ask me, “horse race” is not the proper term. “Contingency plan” is much more apropos. I get the sense that with the economy the way it is, the difficulty in getting things done in California, the T-rights issue affecting San Jose, and the uncertainty regarding Oakland’s ability to pull a deal off, MLB may view a dual-track plan as the best course of action right now.

First, let’s understand what the Bay Area means to MLB from a historical context. If you read the blog post from before Thanksgiving, you might see the Bay Area as one big bag of fail. Couple that with the litany of failed attempts to get something built for the Giants, aborted attempts to move by both the Giants and A’s (Tampa Bay and Denver respectively), and a lengthy delay in getting the only new MLB ballpark in California built (PETCO), you might actually excuse MLB for not believing that any ballpark plan in the Bay Area was a sure thing. Frankly, I’d be cautious too.

And so it may be that MLB is going to approach the A’s solution in a manner that won’t satisfy boosters from either San Jose or Oakland. It’s highly possible that MLB will foster Oakland’s efforts, while granting Wolff his chance to “explore” the South Bay simultaneously. Those of you pro-Oakland folks will look at this and say that The Town will be screwed since San Jose is so far ahead in the process. Well, nothing stopped Oakland from starting this process a year or at worst six months ago, instead of now. The nice thing politically about the way Oakland has gone about this is that they haven’t had to spend any money or make any significant decisions. Now we’ve got IDLF demanding that MLB commit to Oakland before they spend money on an EIR, which probably got many a chuckle going in NYC and Milwaukee. MLB doesn’t have to commit to anything. In fact, they can turn it around and pay for some or all of the EIR, thereby forcing Oakland to start making some decisions.

As for San Jose, they’re not the undisputed winners, at least not yet. They’ll have one chance. That’s it. While Oakland officials have pointed to a 2015 opening day for a Victory Court ballpark, San Jose won’t have as long, with a 2014 opening looming instead. The 2013 end of the Coliseum lease makes this a necessity. There may also be some lingering disinterest in opening the T-rights can until San Jose is completely in the bag, which right now it isn’t at all. Political capital for Selig to get consensus from the owners may not happen until everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. Selig won’t move until he has that consensus. And as long as a referendum is the deciding factor, he may not want to push all of his chips towards San Jose.

Oakland, then, is a hedge. Suppose that MLB helps fund the EIR, just as they’ve promised to partly fund San Jose’s special election. Since it’s unlikely that Wolff would be involved in an Oakland ballpark, MLB could arrange an ownership change to Oakland interests once the ballpark deal was in place, probably by buying the team Expos-style. Knowing the position in which they sit, Oakland has to decide whether to move forward or not. There will be some who are clearly offended by being placed second in the process. They may ask to pull out of the running entirely. Or they could take advantage of the opportunity, following through on all of the necessary steps just in case San Jose blows up – just as Fremont and Coliseum North did. Is it a long shot? There’s no denying it. Over the last 15 years Oakland’s made missteps and had the deck stacked against them. Yet it still has a chance, however remote, of keeping the A’s. To not work with that would be the utmost display of spite and would give MLB every excuse to finalize the move to San Jose without the slightest tinge of regret.

For many who are wrapped up in civic identity, the A’s saga is a zero-sum game. For someone to win, the opponent has to lose. For the rest of us A’s fans, it’s not zero-sum at all. We just want the A’s to stay local and for the era of free agent sluggers spurning us to end. For different reasons, MLB probably has a similar view. They want 30 vital teams. Despite the occasional talk of contraction by tinfoil hatters out there, Selig doesn’t want the failure of two contracted teams on his resume. There’s a decent chance that if San Jose doesn’t work out, Oakland will get its chance, and if that doesn’t work out – well, someone’s been thinking about what might happen in that case.

12.02.10
by

The chattering class takes their turn

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

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

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

Keep the comments thread civil, everyone.

12.02.10
by

This train business

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.01.10
by

Oakland Planning Commission Session 12/1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, just noticed this from KTVU’s report:

That looks somewhat familiar…

11.29.10
by

Cyber Monday Reality Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds familiar.

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

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

11.26.10
by

Caveat citizen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then again, as the article stated,

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

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

11.24.10
by

There’s trying, and then there’s trying

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

bayarealocations

Competing sites:

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

HOK East Bay study sites:

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

San Jose study sites:

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

A’s ownership promoted sites:

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

Have a good Thanksgiving, everyone.

11.24.10
by

Athletics After Dark Stadium Debate

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

Jeffrey’s comment added:

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

Some general observations:

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

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

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

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