Category Archives: Oakland

10.15.10
by

Purdy interview on KNBR

Merc columnist and all-around San Jose booster Mark Purdy was on the Fitz and Brooks show today (podcast MP3). After a few minutes of figuring out where the Niners’ season went wrong, Bob Fitzgerald asked Purdy about the ballpark situation. At no point was there a mention of yesterday’s news about the Redevelopment Agency’s funding shortage. What Purdy revealed was no less interesting, and I can provide a small amount of additional back story.

Asked about the state of the MLB panel’s report, Purdy said this:

What I know is that Lew Wolff did have a meeting a couple, three weeks ago. (He) came out of that meeting feeling optimistic that the report was gonna be issued soon, and optimistic that it was gonna come down in favor of the A’s at least being able to explore the ballpark in San Jose. I know that.

I also know that another source close to that… they are proceeding down only one track at the moment… they’re proceeding down the San Jose track… at the moment. That’s what I know.

As I understand it, Wolff met with Selig twice in September, once in LA during an A’s road trip and again in Milwaukee, Selig’s home turf. Some time after that, I started hearing that South Bay advocates were feeling pretty good about things. I didn’t get any info then about what they were feeling good about. Apparently Purdy did get it.

If true, there are some major takeaways, which combined with some info we know about the Giants, makes the picture much, much clearer.

  • Oakland is not under consideration at this stage, only San Jose is. Note that Purdy did not say that Oakland was completely eliminated, only that it isn’t in the running “at the moment.” If San Jose fails, Oakland becomes a factor again. But only if San Jose fails.
  • Something will happen at the owners meetings. Sure, but which owners meetings? The first set is November 17-18 in Orlando. The next set will be December 6-9 at Lake Buena Vista, which is just outside Orlando. As much as the A’s situation continues to linger, the owners will also spend a good deal of time on the lingering fate of the Tampa Bay Rays, who are based only two hours southwest of Orlando.
  • Ruling that the A’s will be able to explore building a ballpark in San Jose. This is the one I’m most curious about, because if it’s true, it represents a sort of softening on MLB’s part. MLB generally won’t allow a city to get a team unless there is a signed deal in place. They even left DC hanging while lawsuits and eminent domain proceedings threatened the prospects of what would eventually become Nationals Park. This news indicates that San Jose will have a chance, but will need to get the rest of its pieces in place (land, referendum). That could give San Jose no more than a 6-9 month window – 6 months if land proceedings go smoothly or 9+ if eminent domain is required. Plus you can never tell what will happen on the legal front (Giants or surrogates).

Purdy spends the rest of the segment theorizing what might be happening behind the scenes. As much as it sucks to be kept in suspense, I’d much rather the panel take this time to work out all of the details, than to have Selig and the owners make a decision and then clean up the mess afterward. Even then, it’s uncertain what the Giants will do, since they are maintaining a “no-negotiation” stance. I guess when it comes to dealing with any Halloween-colored team owned by a lawyer, things tend to get messy.

10.09.10
by

Coliseum sans Coliseum

Update 10/11 1:20 PM: SFGate’s Raiders blogger Vittorio Tafur has some choice words from Amy Trask, indicating where much of the inspiration for this vision came from:

“There is no short answer. … We’re having ongoing discussions about the stadium opportunities. We’re working very, very cooperatively with the city and with the local officials. We’ve been extolling the virtues of this site for a quite awhile now. It was a year and a half, 18 months, give or take, maybe more, just under, but about a year and a half ago that I started talking about this site and using a new-stadium on this site as an opportunity to revitalize the whole area.

Why not, rather than look simply look at the stadium project, look at how one can use a stadium as an anchor for, or a catalyst for, an urban redevelopment that provides economic stimulus for the whole region? You guys know as well as I do that this site is centrally located, it’s tremendously well-served by public transportation. There are stadiums and facilities all over the country where they’re trying to figure out, how do we get subways or trains to come to our stadium? We’ve got BART. We’ve got Amtrak, the capitol corridor, the ACE train. So, it’s a central location on a freeway, well-served by public transportation.

So, about a year and a half ago, we started proposing and extolling the virtues of proposing the possibility of doing a stadium project on this site. Not as a stand-alone facility but as a catalyst for an urban renovation in the manner in which to bring economic stimulus for the whole region. We have been working very cooperatively with the city and the Joint Powers Authority. You guys understand this region. Right now, fans come to this facility and there’s nowhere for them to spend their money in the area. There’s one or two spots on Hegenbereger, but how about doing something here like was done on the waterfront.”

If the Raiders get a new stadium built in the Coliseum complex, be prepared for the place to look something like this:

You may notice something’s missing. That’s because there’s a large pedestrian plaza where the old Coliseum infield used to be. The finished product includes a $862 million stadium, which includes $144 million in debt remaining on the the original (and to be demolished) Coliseum. A stadium built for two teams would cost $880 million. Either way, costs would be slightly less than the $954 million projected for the 49ers stadium, though likely rising costs haven’t been accounted for in the Oakland model.

These and other facts come from a recent feasibility study (PDF) commissioned by the Coliseum Authority. The analysis was done by CSL, a firm that has done plenty of other similar studies, including the study for the Santa Clara stadium. Not surprisingly, CSLI breaks down the financing for the stadium (minus Coliseum debt) along very similar lines to what was pitched for the Niners:

  • $96 million in public funds (redevelopment)
  • $133 million in personal seat licenses membership equity fees
  • $150 million from the NFL
  • $339 million from the Raiders

If the 49ers and Raiders roomed together at the stadium, the financial picture would be vastly different:

  • $110 million in public funds (redevelopment)
  • $133 million in personal seat licenses membership equity fees from Raiders fans
  • $133 million in personal seat licenses stadium builders licenses from 49ers fans
  • $300 million from the NFL
  • $30 million from the Raiders
  • $30 million from the 49ers

One of these is impossible, whereas the other makes too much sense to actually happen. Keep in mind that the two-team model is the only truly feasible model in either Santa Clara or Oakland. Naming rights could be worth double for a shared stadium. There would be less competition for a bowl game, soccer friendlies, mega concerts – all of these big events would gravitate to one place. It’s just a matter of executing.

While the Niners are well ahead of the Raiders process-wise, the Silver & Black hold the trump card. Ever since the Santa Clara concept was unveiled, I was skeptical that the Niners could do it alone and I remain skeptical. It’s no fault of the team, it’s simply too expensive. It would be one thing if it was the Giants and Jets working together; at least they had a working relationship to help make the deal possible. Nothing like that exists here. And for the Yorks to hope that Al Davis’ wandering eye will somehow cease long enough to pen a long-term deal is, well, not very promising.

The holdup here is that Al could very easily move the Raiders south to Santa Clara. But you can’t expect him to agree to the same kind of 40-year lease to which the Niners are committing. It would be hard to see him commit to anything longer than a decade, hell, even 5 years. The Raiders are going to want to keep all of their options open, whether that means a new stadium in Oakland, or waiting out what happens with the Chargers in San Diego (or LA). Any short-term lease or flexible situation makes it harder to secure important pieces of financing, which will make it harder to get the stadium built. Not to sound callous, but the best thing for both teams – if they want to get something done together – may be for Mr. Davis to slip into a long coma. Or, you know. Then again, maybe Amy Trask’s eye is just as wandering.

Going back to the plan, I think they’re making a mistake. Instead of demolishing the entire Coliseum, they should reuse the East Side stand the way I described in March, transforming it into a convention center. The space is there and there’s plenty of opportunity for integration, whether it’s extra parking through a garage under the facility or a green roof creating a large amount of open space. After all, you’re already talking about a billion dollars, what’s another half-billion among friends? It would allow the employment base to be stabilized, since the low-wage service jobs common with these facilities could easily float between the arena, stadium, and convention center.

Beyond that, it’s clear that any stadium project would need TIF to help it get built, TIF that would come from surrounding development. Various industrial and commercial development projects would be encouraged, along with more sprawling parking across 880 (notice the pedestrian overpass). Not sure what that would mean for tailgating. I’m somewhat curious about the “Live/Work” area occupying the Coliseum North area (thanks Jeff), as it’s a stage that would probably trail the rest of the development.

Is it a pipe dream? Yes. I was somewhat disappointed that the Trib’s panel didn’t raise any questions about the Raiders’ future in Oakland, even though a feasibility study for the Raiders was due and up for review. Certainly, the Coliseum Authority, City, and County don’t want to lose the Raiders, but at what price? Knowing that Raiders could very well want only short-term deal in the South Bay, the Authority may be best served by waiting the Santa Clara process out – for if that fails, an East Bay stadium sounds like a decent fallback (though not as cost-efficient as a rebuilt Coliseum).

Other notes from the presentation:

The cited population figures are strange. They completely omit Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties, which indicates they did a fairly lazy CSA lookup-and-add to derive the numbers.

I hadn’t seen a corporation count in one of these studies until now. Even with the omitted counties, the Bay Area would place third (fourth if LA had a team and was included in the comparison).

I took the corporation count further by making a before/after comparison. If a new football stadium were built along with a new ballpark for the A’s, there’d be a visible shift in the amount of premium options available to interested parties. There could even be some oversaturation of the premium product, especially club seats. The suite numbers look the same, but should be treated differently because the future total includes “minisuites,” which are smaller and more affordable than typical luxury suites. The oversaturation phenomenon is evident in New York, where the old stadium only had 500 club seats (2X teams) and the new one has 10,000 (also 2X teams).

I’m sure that many of you South Bay partisans will quickly say that the market can support the jump. I’m not so sure. Good thing club seats aren’t counted as part of the TV blackout quota.

It’s also not clear what the effects on the Warriors would be. BTW, the team currently owes $10.7 million in back rent and expenses to the Coliseum Authority, a likely goodbye present from outgoing owner Chris Cohan. The drive to rename the Warriors won’t go anywhere as long as there is this tension regarding financials between W’s and the Authority.

10.06.10
by

Trib Editorial Board asks mayoral candidates about A’s, Warriors

Blog fave Dave Newhouse reports on a panel held for the four leading Oakland mayoral candidates about two major sports issues affecting Oakland. The one with the most ink is the matter of whether the Golden State Warriors will finally adopt the Oakland moniker. I suspect the answer for incoming W’s owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber lies in money. Chris Cohan hinted a long time ago that some amount of relief from the team’s lease might do it. It’s not clear whether the same thing would satisfy the new owners. There is also some question as to what value each designation has. Is “Oakland Warriors” more or less valuable as a brand than “Golden State Warriors?” Some sports marketing folks out there know the answer to that better than I do.

Following that question of pride was a question about a pending fall. All four were asked to address the A’s situation:

(Jean) Quan: “I think this (city) is the soul of Major League Baseball — great diversity, ethnically and income-wise. I met Lew Wolff after I got elected. He didn’t say ‘girlie,’ but almost. There’s not a transit-rich (baseball) site that’s more ready to go in the entire Bay Area than ‘Victory Court’ (in Jack London Square). We own most of it, and could develop it as an entertainment (center).”

(Rebecca) Kaplan: “I love the A’s. Lew Wolff felt (Mayor) Jerry Brown didn’t care. The A’s could succeed here very well. I believe we could have a football and baseball stadium on the Coliseum site. We own the land. San Jose is not a done deal. They have a local law that requires a ballot measure, and they did not put it on the November ballot. So there’s a window of opportunity here.”

(Joe) Tuman: “I’ll be blunt. In professional sports, it’s ‘show me the money.’ … I won’t spend a dime of public money on keeping the Oakland Athletics here when I can’t pay for police officers or keep the streets safe. I’m not saying it can’t work, but let’s be objective.”

(Don) Perata: “I probably know a little more about this stuff than most people. I was part of two Raider deals that both failed. We got held up; we really did — by both (the A’s and Raiders). We got rid of the Coliseum board and then politicized it. … In retrospect, it was a disaster. I don’t think the A’s are going to stay here. We can’t play in this game, putting up the money. We haven’t been smart with our franchises.”

So from this, we can gather that one candidate backs Victory Court, another backs a Coliseum-sited ballpark, another won’t put up a dime, and the frontrunner has given up. Well, no one can ever say Oakland lacks diversity, and that goes for sports politics too.

According to this DIY poll by TellFi (via The Oakbook), Perata is garnering 34% of the vote, with Quan at 27%, Kaplan at 16%, and Tuman at 10%. If Perata and his rather brutally honest mindset prevails, it’s probably curtains for MLB in Oakland. Absent a simple majority, Perata would have to win via the instant runoff that would occur on election day.

Strangely, Newhouse follows up Perata’s comment by writing, “But we’ve been smart enough to keep them.” I’m not sure that smart is the operative word, Dave.

(Thanks, Ed)

Quick postscript: I wonder how linusalf will spin this Newhouse article? Update 10/8: He finally did, and it doesn’t say much. Also, supposedly Lowell Cohn was on Ken Dito’s show this morning and is no longer opposing a move south because of Oakland’s inaction. Wonders never cease.

09.17.10
by

If You Got Any Money Left Over, Buy Yourself Something REAL Nice, Clark.

The headline is a quote from one of my favorite movies of all time, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. It is spoken by Cousin Eddie as he loads up a shopping cart with dog food that his Cousin-in-Law, Clark Griswold, is expected to pay for. At this point in the movie, Clark is telling Eddie that he wants to make sure Eddie’s children have a nice Christmas and that he is willing to buy them some gifts if it will help. Eddie’s “gratitude” is clear when he pulls out a prepared list of things his children want for Christmas. What the heck does this have to do with the A’s and a new stadium?

The elephant in the room, the one everyone seems to be ignoring, is that the details of any financing plan for a new Bay Area stadium are murky, at best. We all hear “privately financed” bandied about in media reports. But what does that really mean? After all, with rare exceptions, MLB has played Cousin Eddie to just about every city that has seen a new stadium go up in the past 25 years.

The only real exception, though it was not entirely privately financed, is AT&T Park. Using this park as an example, 96% was privately financed, we can back into what “privately financed” actually means. Roughly half of that funding was provided through corporate support,  or the combination of naming rights (Pac Bell) and Charter Seat sales. The other half was in the form of a loan provided by Chase Bank, secured with MLB’s help. It seems clearer and clearer that this is, mostly, the model that MLB has in mind for the A’s.

So what evidence do we have that a ballpark in either Oakland or San Jose will follow a similar model? For one, we have the report that MLB has discussed a loan of $150M with folks in Oakland. We have the letter from Ron Dellums and Jane Brunner talking up deposits from 35 companies (amongst other things). We also have a recent letter from Silicon Valley power players to Bud Selig supporting a move down 880. Now we have the follow up Op Ed in the Mercury News, authored by two of those power players (Mike Klayko of Brocade and Tom Werner of Sun Power) pretty much restating the original letter. The key line from the Op Ed is:

Along with other respected and diverse organizations, we stand ready to offer any support needed to move this important project forward.

And from the SVLG 75 CEO/Other Important People Open Letter (Fourth paragraph, first sentence):

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, along with other respected and diverse organizations, stands ready to offer any support needed to move this important project forward.

On the surface, these are clear statements meant to persuade Selig. In part, they are meant to show that the corporate support needed for both long term viability and a private financing scheme is there, in both cities. This is where the similarities end.

In the San Jose case, There are a few other Easter eggs that are not getting much mention.

I think MLB’s propensity for being Cousin Eddie, to (Insert City Name Here)’s Clark, is part of what the letters and Op Ed are about. Or, in other words, these messages are not only intended to allay Bud Selig’s fears (assuming he has them). They are also a signal to let citizens know that their “Corporate Citizens” are ready, willing and able to buy Charter Seats and sponsorships as part of any plan. We already know that Cisco is going to play Pac Bell’s role in a San Jose version of San Francisco’s funding scheme.

Another part of this message is, Miami is mad at you MLB for playing Cousin Eddie while the Marlins weren’t really living out of an RV, as they had claimed. If you come to San Jose, you don’t have to worry about that. We, the SVLG, will be Clark instead of the tax payers.

Additionally, there is the repeated mention of Giants fans within the SVLG communiques. This is meant to let Bud Selig know that there won’t be a mass exodus of Corporate support up in Baghdad by the Bay. That the Giants won’t become destitute, as Larry Baer wants us all to believe, provided the A’s move south. To undercut Bill Neukom’s argument for locking MLB out of San Jose.

There is one other thing hidden in the subtext. Watch this video, the important part comes up at 5:05.   When you combine John Chambers’ message (We won’t put our name on a Stadium in New York because we are in San Jose) with the fact that the SVLG letter and the Brocade/Sun Power Op Ed go out of their way to avoid mentioning the word “Oakland” and “new stadium” in the same context, the message is pretty clear. Bud Selig, we want the A’s in San Jose and will buy sponsorships and ticket packages for both the Giants and A’s if it gets us a stadium in San Jose. Not so much in Oakland.

I think it is fair to say that this what the messages are, don’t you?

What we don’t know, what the letters don’t tell us, is how much of any new stadium will be financed by corporations/presales and how much by loans, exactly. In the San Jose case, if 60 of those 75 companies bought some bundle of seats and advertising, and Cisco maintained $130M in naming rights, they would each need to pledge $1.7M of their Selling, General and Administrative budgets to Cisco Field in order for the combination of naming rights and Corporate sponsorships to cover half of the projected construction costs. As a point of reference, Yahoo’s S, G and A budget last year was $1.8B, which means this overly simplified $1.7M number represents less than one tenth of a percent of the budget where it would need to come from. There is a similar situation with Cisco ($9B), Brocade ($500M), Ebay ($3.6B), and so on and so forth.

Of course, we know that SVLG has well over 75 members and more members might be willing to chip in (while others, like the San Jose Giants, won’t be). I am guessing Bud Selig knows this, too. This is the biggest thing going against the possibility of Clorox Coliseum. If Oakland isn’t pledging public dollars for construction, how does the thing get paid for? If Oakland really is pledging pubic dollars (as I have been told) for construction, how long before pitch fork wielding citizens show up at City Hall?

The answer to this question (How does stadium construction get paid for?), not Larry Ellison’s attempt to buy the Warriors, not Bill Neukom’s Anti-Trust case won/loss record, and not 15 years of back and forth between the A’s and Oakland is what will, ultimately, decide where the A’s will play.

In short, it is “tradition and history” v. “a clear source of funding.” We can handicap this however we want, but it is what it is. I don’t know which will win out.

****(I am adding a table that shows the split between private and public funding at the most recent 21 MLB ballparks built for all of our info. It originally came for  the San Jose Economic Impact Analysis)

Funding Mix Private v. Public

09.13.10
by

The Sensible, if Overlooked, Alternative

Bryan Grunwald is a resident of Oakland with a passion for his city. He is also Principle for an Urban Planning and Architecture firm. He has worked on projects like the Mission Bay campus for UCSF. So why is the City of Oakland seemingly ignoring him and his concept, in favor of inferior ideas?

Before we answer that question, we first have to tell you about his idea. One that was mentioned in passing in a previous post by my partner, ML. I like to think of the concept as, “Lew Wolff says there is no land suitable to build a stadium in Oakland so why don’t we create new land to build on?”

Anybody see any land worth building on here?

The picture above is centered on a concrete moat that separates Downtown Oakland from West Oakland. Most of us refer to it as the Interstate 980 freeway. Grunwald, taking a cue from other cities (like Seattle, Duluth, and Trenton), has proposed “decking” the 980 freeway and constructing a ballpark on top of it.

I admit, when I first heard this, I thought it was a little too Star Trek. But as I looked into the idea and read more about the other cities successes and the challenges at Victory Court, I realized it was way more Star Wars. That is to say, it was my kind of geeky.

Grunwald's vision with Fenway standing in for to be determined stadium

First, the traffic concerns of JLS don’t exist here. This spot is at the confluence of several concrete rivers, or Highway 24, I-980 and I-880. Additionally, there are no trains that run nearby to cause congestion on the two surface streets that pass nearby. There are two BART stations within walking distance. Add to that, a plethora of parking within the nearby vicinity, much closer than parking options at Victory Court.

Other pluses include reconnecting West Oakland with Downtown. In between the stadium site and Uptown/City Center sits several blighted and underdeveloped properties, the stadium could serve as anchor to drive development in the area that sorely needs it. While this could be said of Victory Court, this site requires none of the upheaval that Victory Court does. In a city like Oakland, with a limited business community, why wouldn’t you consider an alternative where existing businesses get to stay put and continue to operate, create jobs and pay taxes?

One last thing, I consider a major advantage. Go back and look at the “renderings” ML created for my original Victory Court post. The view of the estuary is not really that stunning. The estuary is, after all, a man made channel for shipping purposes, not the alluring open space of the San Francisco Bay that AT&T visitors get across the bay. This site offers a true alternative at about one fifth ($30M v. $150M) the price. You can look at a skyline!

The view of Oakland (notice nearby BART stations) from the proposed portion of I-980

This last point leads me to why I really, really like this concept. If the A’s are to stay in Oakland, and be within shouting distance of one of the best stadiums in all of baseball, they need to have something different to offer. A cheap knock off of AT&T Park on the east side of the bay does not offer that. Let’s Go Oakland seems to think that it will be wildly popular. But just like the Public Market in Oakland isn’t attracting anything like the expected demand for office/retail space, partly because businesses would prefer to be close to the real Embarcadero, casual baseball fans will spend their money at the original waterfront park in the only World Class City in Northern California when given the choice of that or an imitation on an inferior “waterfront.” It is what marketing types call “differentiation,” and it is at the heart of the advantage San Jose has by being so far away from San Francisco. Oakland should embrace being different, not try to be the same.

Back to the original question. Why has this been dismissed by Oakland? The answer, for me, rests in the “Property Value Benefit” associated with Victory Court. Think about who stands to gain from that projected increase in property values. Think about who footed the bill for the Economic Impact Analysis. I find it ironic that Oakland Boosters disparage Lew Wolff as a greedy developer, when it is Signature Properties that is pulling the puppet strings on Victory Court. That’s right a “greedy developer” owns most of the land that will increase in value and will see most of the benefit of increased property values.

One last thing of note for those who are skeptical of what is driving this process. Oakland released an RFQ for an EIR to evaluate the potential for a stadium at Victory Court. Responses were due last week. Here is some feedback from one of the companies who received the RFQ but didn’t respond:

No I didn’t respond. The EIR consultant community thinks the engagement is wired due to the impossible timeline. Just like the whole process is wired by Signature Properties.

C’mon Oakland, us A’s fans deserve better.

**** 9/14/2010 HCF asked for an alternate view, here are 3. jeffrey****

VIew Towards the Hills

View Towards JLS

View of San Francisco

09.11.10
by

The Miner and the Bomb

I have had the opportunity to talk to a few folks from Oakland over the past week about ballpark related items. It all started when I got a message to my facebook account that said something like, “There is a site in Oakland that no one is talking about.”

I made a few phone calls, spoke with a few folks (very excellent, forthcoming people who shall remain nameless as I have promised) with varying degrees of information and I came away with one conclusion. Oakland is playing Stratego while Oakland Boosters think they are playing chess.

Oakland’s strategy has three main points:

  1. Wait out MLB. Obstruct and keep from having a decision on TR’s made in San Jose’s favor.
  2. When Lew Wolff grows tired of waiting/TR’s are reaffirmed, recruit Larry Ellison to buy the team.
  3. Pledge public funds for a ballpark at Victory Court.

I know, I know. I teased you all with a “plan,” implying specific tactics, and came back with a high level “strategy.” Let’s delve into each of the points above a bit, shall we?

Territorial Rights Affirmation

To a man, everyone with knowledge I talked to said, “There is no way MLB will let the A’s into San Jose.” Almost that direct quote, almost like it was being read off a card.

“Why?”

The answer? Various versions of, “because the Giants owners told us so.” The main argument is that San Francisco floated bonds to fund 5% of AT&T Park based on the Giants existing territory (As Dennis Herrera said when threatening a law suit). They claimed there was a contract between MLB and San Francisco. I can only assume they are referring to the letter from former National League President, Leonard Coleman, sent in 1997. That is what Herrera referred to in his shot across the bow (PDF).

Recruit Ellison

I’ll be honest, this one baffles me. From what I can tell… the idea hasn’t been broached with Larry Ellison. It is an assumption that has been made by those who want a new owner. Larry Ellison wanted to buy the Warriors and lost out. The Warriors are in Oakland. Therefore, Larry Ellison wants a professional sports team based in Oakland.

It sounds crazy. The thing is, multiple people told me that Ellison is the guy that Oakland will try to persuade to buy the team. They didn’t say, “We will find a new local owner.” They said, “We will try to get Larry Ellison to buy the team.”

I am not sure if they realize Ellison also tried to buy the Seattle Sonics and move them to San Jose, before he tried to buy the Warriors. I am not sure if that is important.

As you can probably tell, this part seems really unrealistic to me. But what do I know?

Victory Court

We have all assumed this already, right? Victory Court is the site that Oakland refuses to confirm as the site. There are some challenges though, and I wonder if avoiding a spotlight on said challenges is the real reason for all the subterfuge.

Newballpark.org has obtained a series of letters from nearby neighborhood associations, most notably the Jack London District Association, urging the City of Oakland to consider an alternative to the alternatives presented to MLB. Here are the reasons as stated in the letter:

It is far too soon to actually endorse this plan vs. any other option, but the preliminary assessment is that it would create far less disruption to existing businesses and residents and create an environmentally preferable commute for many of the workers at the facility, who could walk from their West Oakland and downtown homes. In addition, there would be far fewer environmental mitigation issues, compared to the frequently toxic environmental conditions in much of the Port and Jack London District Areas. This new site proposal also has the advantage of requiring far less land acquisition, reducing cost and potential litigation, when compared to other suggested sites.

Those near Victory Court are concerned with a one thing in particular, in addition to those called out in the paragraph above. Traffic.

Even with BART about a quarter of a mile away, most folks will come to baseball games via automobile. Should only half of all spectators come by car there will be thousands of cars that aren’t normally there. The freeway infrastructure around Victory Court, and the surface streets in the area are not set up to handle a great deal of cars. There are basically two approaches, one coming West on Oak Street, which requires use of an off ramp with a sharp 90 degree turn. Or, coming up from the South on Embarcadero, which requires crossing train tracks. The combination of an inadequate off ramp and trains, that frequently pass through the area, have the potential to create a huge traffic nightmare. How huge? We won’t know until someone way smarter than me does a real traffic study for an EIR.

If my sources are correct, and I believe them, MLB has told Oakland that it will come up with a loan of about $150M for a ballpark in the city, if it is in the right place. That would leave Oakland CEDA on the hook for an estimated $150M for property acquisition, business relocation and environmental remediation. There is another $400M to be found somewhere in this calculus.

I am told, that some portion of this money is expected to come from City issued Bonds. Raiders, anyone?

In Summary

When I used to love to play Stratego, my favorite part was figuring out where to set my bombs and using my miners to defuse my opponents bombs. It was a slow, and painful progression at times. Sometimes, it worked and I captured the opponents flag. Sometimes it didn’t and before I defused enough bombs they had my flag. It seems to me that the City of Oakland is doing something similar. Lying in wait, watching the progress of San Jose from afar and banking on too many bombs blowing up in their path. Leaving Oakland with the only clear path to the flag. Is it a good strategy? I guess time will tell, but I can think of a better one.

This started with someone reaching out to me about a different potential site in Oakland, didn’t it? And didn’t the letter from JLDA above mention an alternative to consider?

Those are one in the same. Stay tuned….

08.27.10
by

Them’s fightin’ words

A brief article in the Merc (with grafx) compares the San Jose and Oakland ballpark plans, such as they are. Bruce Newman has the Oakland side, while Tracy Seipel covers the San Jose angle (with a Fremont tidbit for good measure). In the broader piece is a choice quote from SJ booster Michael Mulcahy:

Yet it’s San Jose’s downtown proposal that Wolff has dubbed his best option, with the city contributing the land and Wolff building the stadium. After 17 months of study by an MLB committee, Wolff and others wonder if Oakland’s 11th-hour pitch is truly credible.

“Oakland’s effort is entirely smoke and mirrors,” said Michael Mulcahy, co-founder of the grassroots group Baseball San Jose. “There is no political will and no corporate community to mount a serious effort.”

Oakland disagrees, though the city has not yet committed any money to a stadium deal. Still, boosters have recruited 35 companies that have pledged a total of $500,000 in future sponsorships, naming rights and luxury suites.

As much as Oakland boosters tout Facebook supporters and emergent economic clout, I still get the sense that several parties there aren’t on the same page, at least when it comes to the A’s.

Disclosure: For this article I was contacted by the Merc about some of the 3-D sketches I put out a while back, especially in reference to Oakland. When asked for similar drawings, those in the know in Oakland didn’t have any. Not that hard to get a volunteer or two to learn Sketchup, Oakland boosters. I would’ve gladly provided sketches if asked, even improved on what I had previously done. At least it would’ve helped people visualize the potential.

08.05.10
by

Again I have to ask, “Is the process legitimate?”

Monte Poole has a column out tonight calling San Jose the “underdog,” which by extension would make Oakland the “favorite.” Which is fair, considering the amount of work that has to be done to get any team to move, let alone the A’s. There is something in the column around which I’d like to center the discussion.

“I’ll admit, 16 to 18 months ago, the team seemed on its way out of Oakland,” says Doug Boxer, vice chairman of the Oakland planning commission and co-founder of Let’s Go Oakland, a group formed to keep the A’s in the city. “We saw it as a ‘check the box’ process.

“But it has become apparent this is a real process. There has been correspondence with the commissioner. Oakland is providing relevant and real data showing the A’s can make it work here.”

Poole doesn’t say whether or not he thinks the process is legitimate. Boxer deserves credit for believing that it is.

However, there are lots of pro-Oakland folks who either believe that the whole thing is rigged and Oakland is doomed, or that it’s legitimate and Oakland will win out due to its work and difficulty in getting a San Jose deal to happen. The thing is, you can’t have it both ways. As outlined in my chart, if Oakland is deemed incapable of hosting the A’s long term, they will be out the door, by hook or crook. It may take several years, even a decade. An ownership change wouldn’t matter, since the problems would be related to the market, not an owner. Put it this way: the Giants got a lot of crap for financing $170 million for China Basin. Do you think MLB would approve a new pro-Oakland ownership group knowing that it would have to fund $350 million or more (after naming rights) for an Oakland ballpark, even if it felt that the regional support wasn’t there? Not likely.

The only way this works out the best for Oakland is if:

  • A) The process is real and legitimate
  • B) MLB rules that Oakland and the East Bay are enough to support the A’s
  • C) Wolff/Fisher are so frustrated that they sell instead of waiting it out until after the 2017 season, when debt service for AT&T Park would end

That’s a lot of “what-ifs” to hinge your hopes on. If this is all legitimate, that’s what you have to believe. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “I trust MLB to do the right thing” and then claim that it’s rigged if the decision doesn’t come out your way. If it’s fair, you should be prepared to live with the ruling, good or bad. And if it isn’t, you should be calling B.S. on the whole thing from when the charade started in March 2009. Otherwise, your so-called principles don’t amount to a hill of beans.

07.28.10
by

A session for concessions

As was advertised last week, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed met with MLB COO Bob DuPuy to clear the air about the City’s move towards a November vote. What came out of it was an urging by DuPuy and his boss, Commissioner Bud Selig, to delay the vote until next March, which MLB promised it would partially fund. The idea is that Selig’s panel would complete its work and then allow him to render a decision which would allow San Jose to move forward (or not).

Unfortunately, no one in my household was a fly on the wall for the proceedings, so we have no idea what was said outside of the statement. What was said (and not printed) is the real story. Thing is, you could fill in the gaps there largely based on your own A’s worldview, framed by a simple question:

Is this process truly legitimate?

(I started out with some paragraphs explaining this, then scrapped them in favor of a table.)

Chances are that you fall into one of the green or yellow cells, depending on which city you are leaning towards. In organizing views in this manner, there is no obvious middle ground even though there are many that fill the “keep ’em in the Bay Area” crowd. The point of the table is that if you spend enough time analyzing the issues and assigning values to the various challenges and benefits each city carries, you’ll probably see yourself on one side of the fence or another. You may waver from time to time depending on the news cycle, which is perfectly acceptable given the lack of real insight the public has into the situation. If there’s anything we’ve learned throughout all of this, it’s that city governments have the transparency of an eggshell, whereas MLB has that of a brick wall.

(Note: Contraction is off the table for now. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be revisited by 2013, though I’m sticking with my thought that it’s too expensive to pull off for MLB – for the owners and legally for the league.)

All right, so I’ve set up everyone’s relative worldview. Whatever your thinking is, it colors the way you view today’s news. In the immediate moments after the Mayor’s press release, I checked to see what the fallout would be here and in the media. SJ Councilman Sam Liccardo was quick to spin the news as positive for the city, in that it forced MLB to act. Mark Purdy just came out with a column in agreement with the councilman. And late last week, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and City Council President Jane Brunner jointly released a letter to MLB outlining the steps that the City has taken to retain the A’s. Here are the bullet points of the letter (made available to BANG late today):

  • Met with your Committee extensively over the 16 month period Identified three waterfront sites which each meet the physical and infrastructural needs for a 21st Century ballpark as identified by your Committee Generated detailed diligence materials on each of the three sites regarding
    o environmental conditions
    o infrastructure conditions
    o transportation access
    o parking studies
  • Generated a detailed land-use plan identifying key milestones and reviewing Oakland’s entitlement processes
  • Demonstrated that the City/Redevelopment Agency has the financial capacity to uphold its end of any negotiated transaction
  • Generated over 130 letters of support for keeping the A’s in Oakland from members of the East Bay private sector including business, labor and community leaders
  • Secured over $500,000 in deposits from 35 corporate entities expressing interest in luxury suites, sponsorship opportunities and, most significantly, naming rights for a new waterfront ballpark
  • Organized a grass-roots effort through Facebook with over 40,000 members committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland (see http://www.facebook.com/letsgooakland)
  • Commissioned and published an Economic and Fiscal study which found that a new waterfront ballpark in Oakland would generate thousands of jobs, generate $2.6 billion in economic activity, increase property values around the ballpark by $4.7 billion, and generate over $240 million for Oakland’s general fund

When you add up the avalanche of press releases and responses, the picture starts to become clear. The horserace that wasn’t supposed to happen, that MLB was supposedly trying to avoid, is here. And now’s when it gets interesting. It’s a mistake to read too much into the little machinations that occur. For instance, MLB offering money for a spring 2011 election is nothing as it’ll come out of Selig’s enormous discretionary fund. It just means that the pro and anti-ballpark forces will have 6 more months to add to their campaign warchests. It’s also a mistake to think that either Oakland or San Jose are in an advantageous position relative to each other.

What’s going to happen? Well, first I expect the SJ City Council to put off the vote, as suggested by Selig/DuPuy. And yes, they’ll take up the offer because it’s free money for what could be a one-issue special election. At the same time, Oakland will get its shot to put together the JLS ballpark deal. The schedule probably won’t be kind, maybe 12-18 months. Maybe as little as 9 months. It may or may not be enough to complete and certify an EIR. More important, they’ll be asked to line up those sponsors and business interests, as referred to in the Dellums/Brunner letter. It’ll be imperative that they execute on this, though I expect that if Don Perata is elected Mayor, his willingness to get in the machine will help. (It should be pointed out that the keeping the A’s is not a plank in any of the leading mayoral candidates’ platforms.) As a concession, MLB may ask Oakland and the Coliseum JPA to add 1-2 years to the A’s lease, which is due to expire after the 2013 season. This would have several cascading effects:

  • The A’s could move into an JLS ballpark in 2015 or 2016 if necessary. Or a San Jose ballpark if it doesn’t work out.
  • The Raiders would suddenly be in a pickle, as they probably don’t want to stay in the current Coliseum config for 2 more years beyond their lease. They could either move to Santa Clara if the 49ers’ stadium is built, or they could play hardball with the JPA and push for a revamped/new Coliseum. Then Oakland and the JPA would have to choose between the two teams.
  • Discussions with Oakland/East Bay-based sponsors, which until now have been under wraps, will have to be more public. Especially the naming rights sponsor, which would probably have to replace Cisco (I’d expect them to go with the Niners stadium instead).
  • Oakland interests could no longer claim that MLB hasn’t given The Town a shot.

None of that is good news if you’re Lew Wolff or a Baseball San Jose booster. Assuming that the process does have integrity, it’s the best way to be above reproach. However, Oakland will have little time to get everything together, a process that has taken San Jose fits and starts totaling 5 years. Oakland pols will have to somehow avoid the idea that they’re ramming a stadium deal through, in a city that is already enormously sensitive to bad stadium deals and doubly sensitive to huge budget cuts. Make enough early mistakes and MLB could kill the contest early. Keep in mind that as nice as 35 corporate sponsors and $500k in deposits sounds, Oakland’s going to need a lot more than that to make the math work on a $450 million ballpark, perhaps $20 million a year in commitments. For now a good first step would be to authorize an EIR. Some of the pledged sponsor money redirected towards the EIR would be a good gesture as it wouldn’t hurt the City fiscally.

Of course, if you think that MLB is prone to cronyism or otherwise rigged this, the endgame is quite different. Rigged for what, though? After all, the whole time San Jose will still be there, sitting and waiting for Oakland to fail, with MLB given a few more months to come up with a T-rights settlement between the Giants and A’s.

07.21.10
by

More whining + CFL building boom, who knew?

With newspapers laying off employees left and right and slimming down the old broadsheet, you’d think that precious inches wouldn’t be wasted on, well, no new news.

Since there isn’t any news, scribes are forced to get comments from Lew Wolff and Jorge Leon/Doug Boxer, who have have a nicely adversarial relationship. This time, Chronicle baseball writer John Shea and Merc columnist Bruce Newman take stabs at the issue. I had warned you good readers a couple of weeks ago that we were heading into a quiet period. Too bad that’s not stopping the media. If anything substantive happens before August 3, I’ll be shocked.

Well, here’s one rumor that’s a good likelihood: Expect that August 3rd vote to move a ballpark initiative forward. As much as San Jose is whining about the commish and his panel, they’re not going to risk losing all momentum by trying to wait MLB out in vain.

….

Up in the Great White North, various CFL cities are in the process of replacing their oft-utillitarian stadia with updated or new venues. Whether they’re talking amenities in Calgary and Edmonton or new digs in Regina and Winnipeg, it sure looks like the CFL is undergoing a cycle of building similar to that seen with the four major sports leagues. While stadia in large markets (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) have usually been domes, the smaller markets typically had outdoor, 30-35,000 seat venues with minimal creature comforts. (Keep in mind that this is a sport with a $4 million salary cap.) Most of these upgrades look either partly or entirely government-funded, which doesn’t look so great.

Quick sidebar: Years ago I went on a series of business trips to Calgary. One of my contacts there was a guy who was also a high school football head coach. Curious about this, I asked which rules the team played by, Canadian or American. He laughed and replied, “American.”

7/21 10:30 AM – You might like ESPN SportsTravel’s article on the farthest seats in baseball. With distances! And pictures!