NFL-Oakland in 140 characters

I realize that the last post was 1,200+ words long, so at lunch today I tried to come up with a more succinct version. So here it is. Pardon my French.

You’re welcome.

Lott-Fortress Stadium Term Sheet Approved by Oakland and Alameda County

A long day and night of talking and grandstanding is over. Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors approved the Ronnie Lott-Fortress Investment Group stadium deal framework around lunchtime. It’s a term sheet, so it has some basic details worked out, but not some extremely important ones, such as the approval of the Raiders and owner Mark Davis. Oakland’s City Council approved the same term sheet late Tuesday night. For what it’s worth, the AlCo BoS vote was 3-1-1. City Council voted 7-0-1. The voted and the completion of the term sheet were needed this week in time for the NFL’s owners meetings, which are taking place in Irving, TX. Updates on stadium plans for the Raiders and Chargers are expected.

I figured I should set the table for my readers and followers, so I tweeted the following shortly after the Council vote:

There may be other votes, including an extension of the ENA if the Raiders are resistant to the proposal, or it changes in major or fundamental ways. As for the cryptic acronyms, drop them in the search box at the top right of this page. Then read.

Let’s take a look at how this framework works.

exhibitb

Breakdown of funding sources

Lott-Fortress estimate the stadium’s cost to be $1.3 billion for a 55,000 open-air NFL-compliant stadium. The capacity is lower than the average NFL venue by design; it’s what Mark Davis requested. Fans seem to be comfortable with the capacity as well, as that’s nearly the same capacity as the Coliseum’s football configurations over the last several seasons. Curiously, there haven’t been many questions about how the cost ballooned from $700 million to $1.3 billion in a matter of a few years. Some of that can be explained by the new estimate’s inclusion of infrastructure spending, an item often omitted due to it being a table stakes requirement for cities to cover. Oakland and Alameda County are also throwing in the land via lease or sale. The land has an appraised value of $150 million. Combine that with the $200 million in infrastructure and the total public contribution is projected to be $350 million.

City and County are both touting the claim that the $2oo million in bonds that will have to be issued to cover the infrastructure piece won’t affect either party’s general fund. That’s possible because half of the infrastructure will be paid by taxes backing an EIFD (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District) bond issue, the rest backed by private bonds. This is essentially the new, limited form of redevelopment that Governor Jerry Brown supported after he dismantled legacy redevelopment agencies in 2011. Restrictions include the inability to use the funds for anything other than actual infrastructure (roads, utilities), so cities can’t raise funds directly for stadium construction. Raised money is also restricted from affecting the general fund, though it’s unclear what would happen if an EIFD defaults on its bonds. It will take some education by pols to explain to constituents how Oakland will be kept safe, especially given the debacle that was Mount Davis.

raiders-stad

A previously released rendering that may or may not look like a future Oakland Raiders stadium

$81 million in debt remains on the stadium, draining city and county coffers every year. Another $100 million remains on Oracle Arena, which will need to be paid off even if/when the Warriors leave for San Francisco. City/County have not factored the debt into the term sheet, so they will continue to pay for it now and into the future. City has been negotiating assuming the debt from the County for years. The Lott-Fortress proposal shifted that a bit, so that the County remains half-ownership of the land but assumes no other risk.

Paying the debt off early would allow Oakland to demolish the existing Coliseum, which sits on a key, central portion of the Coliseum complex.

I don’t know nearly enough about Fortress to comment on them, so I’ll refrain from doing that here. Lott and Fortress say they don’t need an ownership stake to be successful. I can’t see how they can get any kind of good return on a $400 million investment from mostly ancillary revenues. There are no charity cases in the NFL.

Does this move the needle for the league? Not according to stadium/relocation veep Eric Grubman, who threw a bucket of cold water on the proceedings today. Grubman even called the Lott-Fortress proposal a ‘carbon copy’ of last year’s failed Coliseum City plan, which was widely ridiculed in league circles.

Why would Grubman and owners think this way? Because, as I noted previously, what Oakland is offering is table stakes. They aren’t pledging any money towards the construction. They (nor Lott-Fortress) have convinced the Raiders to sign on, though that’s because Davis is committed to Las Vegas, at least until the relocation vote next January or March. Vegas aside, the NFL usually requires a much larger investment from interested cities. The limited risk and exposure that Oakland and Alameda touted in the term sheet is actually a negative for the NFL, whose position is that interested cities prove their worthiness by spending (How else would cities get into such bad stadium deals?). Pro football has kept Oakland in the game in hopes of the City showing the NFL more love. The combination of Oakland’s intransigence and Davis’s recalcitrance makes for a proposal that Grubman characterizes as not a deal at all.

If, as expected, the NFL laughs off the proposal, what will Oakland do next? Will Mayor Libby Schaaf bite the bullet and walk away from the table, or will she rally for Oakland to put together an improved plan that actually includes more public money? At least two Council members (Annie Campbell Washington and Abel Guillen) mentioned that they had many calls and emails asking them to oppose the deal. That sentiment will only grow if more public money is put on the line and the claims of insulation from the general fund become invalid. Vegas has plenty of issues of its own surrounding funding and the potential for Sheldon Adelson to become involved. Deal terms are stronger there thanks to a pledge of $750 million from Clark County.

The Oakland and San Diego questions are not just tests for the incumbent cities. They’re also tests of the NFL itself. In the league insatiable thirst for revenue, it has  demanded king’s ransoms from communities. How much is it willing to upset existing fanbases in Roger Goodell’s never ending quest for the almighty dollar? How much does the NFL value regular fans? If history is any guide, it doesn’t look good for them.

-=-=-

P.S. – The funniest and most surprising moment of the proceedings came during the County Board meeting, when noted Raiders ‘superfan’ Dr. Death spoke during the public comments period. After his plea for support, Supervisor Keith Carson asked Death if he was singling Carson out as a ‘No’ vote and spreading rumors. Death didn’t deny this, and Carson blew up at him, yelling that Death didn’t attempt to call Carson’s office and only assumed Carson was a No. Death left, his manhood squashed. He was right, though, Carson did provide the one No vote. Carson later apologized, perhaps after Death left to return to his home in the Sacramento area. If only I had video of the moment…

P.P.S. – There were no new renderings presented.

P.P.P.S. – From SBJ’s Daniel Kaplan:

Oakland near ready to approve Raiders stadium framework

Last week, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf declared that the City was close to approving a framework for a potential stadium deal for the Coliseum. The framework would allow for Oakland’s exposure to be limited, while bringing in a big money financier to bridge the lingering (and growing) funding gap.

Today, media were assembled to cover yet another closed session of the Oakland City Council to further discuss the deal. The thought was the Council would come out of the meeting announcing the approval of the framework. What happened?

Okay, there’s always next week. Regardless, Council members sounded confident, especially Noel Gallo. Soundbites sound practically ebullient, despite the fact that the Raiders aren’t a participant in these talks. So what were they ready to pop the corks over? Matier and Ross revealed an outline of the framework (a more tenuous-sounding description is hard to come up with). I’ll summarize:

  • Total cost of the project is $1.3 billion
  • $600 million would come from Fortress Investments of New York, the group brought in by Ronnie Lott
  • $300 million from the Raiders
  • $200 million from the NFL’s G-4 stadium fund
  • $200 million from the Oakland and maybe Alameda County, mostly to cover infrastructure

The inflated price of the project is due to the inclusion of 35 acres of ancillary development (retail/commercial). As usual, costs tend to rise over time thanks to inflation and other factors. What I like is that the whole project’s cost is being considered, an improvement over previous proposals with lots of hidden public costs.

The stadium remains a venue with a projected capacity of 58,000 or so, too small for the Super Bowl, right-sized for Mark Davis in Oakland. Davis remains committed to the Las Vegas stadium project, his sugar daddy being MGM Sands mogul and LV Review-Journal owner Sheldon Adelson. Whether Vegas is approved or Davis is forced to go back to Oakland with his tail between his legs, he will require a benefactor to effectively subsidize the stadium over the short term. Long-term, Davis will either have to give up a piece of the team or a percentage of stadium revenues. Otherwise, Davis and the Raiders are a charity case. Most of the time the taxpayers are the benefactor as their tax dollars subsidize that gap. The NFL even prefers that kind of arrangement as the municipality acting as an equity partner, even though they see little in the way of event revenue.

If you saw how the Vegas stadium was rammed through various levels of government over the course of two weeks once it was drawn up, you can appreciate how, well, different Oakland operates. Oakland is mostly working the process on its own, the pace and work has been less than impressive and for all but the most faithful Raider fans, not particularly inspirational. Even the celebratory tone taken by the Council feels more like bravado than actual confidence. They “got it done” according to CM Gallo, but what exactly did they get done? While Coliseum City suffered through its own bouts of stuttering and stalling, the City has gone silent this round, scrambling after the last sugar daddy, Egbert Perry, embarrassed Lott by going behind Lott’s back to make a lowball offer on the Coliseum complex. We should see more details in the coming days, though we’re still talking about a framework, so most of the details we might want to scrutinize won’t be worked out. The play is to wait for Vegas to get rejected, present the plan to Davis, and have him work out the private-side details with Fortress and Lott, with all parties believing they have leverage over the others.

That’s about as forward an approach as Schaaf can take given her previous statements about not putting any public money towards construction – which given the paucity of information, we should still believe to some extent. Infrastructure, if that’s where the $200 million is destined, is technically not stadium construction, though it goes right up to the line. Will that satisfy the NFL owners enough to vote in Oakland’s favor? Unless they collectively have an overwhelming desire to keep the team in Oakland, probably not. They didn’t like how the pie was getting split in St. Louis, so why should they like Oakland’s less committal plan? If the idea for Schaaf and the Council is to present a united front and declare that they putting their best foot forward, they can celebrate. To keep the Raiders, the NFL’s gonna make you take more than a step or two.

Manfred insists Oakland effort is progressing, hints at groundwork for deal

Months ago I pleaded with the A’s to start communicating more regularly with the public on the state of the ballpark effort, if only to give fans some confidence in the effort. With MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred’s answers to questions about Oakland during the current postseason, it appears that the A’s are relying on Manfred to be the credible source. Might as well, since Manfred isn’t (yet) reviled the way A’s ownership is among many locals.

Before I get too far into Manfred’s role, let’s reset the situation. The A’s and Raiders both positioned as preferring the Coliseum for their prospective Oakland stadia, which put the City of Oakland in a bind. The A’s pledged to look at other sites in Oakland in case a football stadium pushed them out. While the A’s are more-or-less bound to Oakland, the Raiders have put a lot of effort into a glitzy venue in Las Vegas. Raiders owner Mark Davis has also flirted with Los Angeles, San Antonio, even San Diego if the Chargers vacate for LA.

In August A’s majority partner John Fisher brought staff with him on a tour of Howard Terminal, Oakland’s best hope for a waterfront downtown ballpark site. No findings have been released, with John Hickey’s article referencing how Howard Terminal remains a difficult proposition due to cleanup and infrastructure costs. There’s also a mention of Brooklyn Basin, but given how the developers for that project weren’t able to pick up a key piece of land that now effectively splits the project in two, it’s highly unlikely that something will magically open up for a ballpark there.

That brings us to Laney College, which sits between Howard Terminal and the Coliseum physically and perhaps also in terms of rank. I tweetstormed about Laney in April. The important thing to note about Laney is that it’s actually two sites separated by E. 8th Ave. The north site is familiar to most as the Laney College athletic fields The south site is the collection of Peralta (Laney’s district) administration buildings. Laney was studied as part of the 2001 HOK presentation, and at first glance it would seem to be a highly favorable location. The land is mostly fields with few structures and is publicly owned. It’s close to Lake Merritt BART and there is some – though not much – parking to the west.

Some of the Oakland sites under consideration. Peralta is below Laney.

Some of the Oakland sites under consideration. Peralta is below Laney.

Unlike the Port and City, who have public land reserves to draw upon, Laney/Peralta have their facilities concentrated among 50 acres straddling Lake Merritt Channel, and they have shown little interest in disposing of any of that land. A planning document published in 2011 showed that the college wants to expand, mostly into the undeveloped parking lot in the southwest corner. Coincidentally, this is where the Raiders’ pre-Coliseum home, Frank Youell Field, was located.

Making a ballpark work at Laney College would require a multi-phase approach because the facilities would continue to be in use for significant portions of the development cycle. If the Laney fields become the site, it’ll be up to the college to figure out how to accommodate practically the entire outdoor athletic program. There’s no obvious place to relocate them. Some might look to a land swap with the Coliseum, but that wouldn’t make sense since the fields would be five miles away, nearly as far from the campus as Merritt College. If the Peralta site is chosen, the administration offices and support for all four campuses in the district would have to be relocated. Perhaps a solution could include a large parking structure with offices atop. That could help serve parking needs for Laney, Peralta, and the A’s. It could also be crazy expensive on its own.

There will be more time to ruminate on sites known and unknown. For now let’s get back to the commish. There’s a lot there to support the notion that Manfred is pushing Lew Wolff and John Fisher towards a solution in Oakland and holding them to account. That’s good PR for baseball in Oakland. Then there was another quote from Manfred about Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf that caught me off guard:

‘The Mayor in Oakland has made it clear to me that baseball is her first priority. She would like to keep both teams, but baseball is her first priority. And I think that’s a good spot for baseball to be in.’

Schaaf has gone to great pains to never express any outright favoritism between the A’s and Raiders, though she has admitted that the sheer number of games the A’s play (82 vs. 10 for the Raiders) is a better economic driver. And there have been whispers that she has backed the A’s privately, biding her time until the Raiders eventually leave. Of course, there’s no guarantee that “eventually” will ever happen, so she has to keep Oakland in play for a football stadium despite a funding gap that is no closer to resolution since the issue was raised during the Quan administration.

Now comes word that Manfred is walking back his assertion about Schaaf, though neither of their respective offices have made any statements to that effect yet (2 PM PT). Given the lack of such statements, it seems that Schaaf is not getting any serious blowback. It also confirms a certain journalistic truism:

Messaging is tough, though not as tough as getting a stadium privately built in California. Manfred wants to accelerate the process regardless of the restrictions placed on the A’s. His vague timeframe of “within the next year” follows similar statements made by Wolff and Oakland pols. It’s likely to slip. No one would be surprised if it did for myriad reasons. That said, Manfred’s desire to get a site picked is a tactic designed to inevitably put the ball in Oakland’s court. Oakland and the A’s have to this point skated on the dual-dilemma scenario with the Raiders. Manfred’s shaking the tree is meant to put some pressure on both team and City. He can do that directly with Wolff and Fisher. He can’t do that to Oakland, not until there is a site and some level of commitment. The key is Manfred’s admission that he’s not sending anyone to Oakland full time to work on the project. In the past that was either Manfred or Bob DuPuy acting on Bud Selig’s behalf, or Eric Grubman doing the same type of field work for Roger Goodell.

When that site is decided, Manfred will turn around and say to Schaaf,  Look at all I’ve done for you, I got the owners in line, there is a site and a plan,what are you going to give baseball? By give I mean the pledges of infrastructure, land, or whatever is needed to offset the enormous investment Wolff and Fisher will have to undertake to build a ballpark. That’s when messaging gives way to dealmaking. It’s a better tack than what the NFL is doing as it looks more generous. Will it ultimately be more successful? Hell if I know.

P.S. – Laney’s in the news, but remember, the A’s still consider the Coliseum the #1 for now. We’ll see if their study changes their assessment.

Raiders ink 1-year lease with options, hire former 49ers CFO MacNeil

The Raiders agreed in principle to a one-year lease at the Coliseum, with the potential for extensions in 2017 and 2018. Specific terms were not revealed at today’s press conference, but the main reveals are that the Raiders will pay more in rent than they had in the most recent lease, and that Larry MacNeil, former 49ers CFO, was hired to work with the City/County/JPA on a new stadium deal. Davis touted MacNeil’s experience in developing Levi’s Stadium.

Towards the end of the press conference, Davis challenged A’s ownership to “commit to Oakland”:

Right now there’s 120 acres. There’s parking, there’s an arena. We like the gameday experience of tailgating on that parking lot. We don’t want to give that up. Now, there’s two teams that play in that Coliseum. One’s the Oakland A’s, one’s the Oakland Raiders. People have not listened when I said I do not mind if there are two stadiums on that site. The A’s stadium would take about 12 acres, the Raiders’ stadium would take about 15-17 acres. That’s fine with me, but I do not want to give up the parking.

If, in fact, the A’s do want to stay in the Coliseum site, they need to commit A.S.A.P. so that we can go ahead and design and take down the Coliseum, provide all the infrastructure necessary to build two new stadiums in Oakland, and two teams will then come back in and play in two new stadiums. What I do not want to do is build a football stadium in the corner of the parking lot while the Coliseum is still standing, and then once we have a brand new stadium we begin to tear down – or build a new baseball stadium – and then tear down the Coliseum, disrupting the ingress, egress, and parking, tailgating experience for Raider fans on gameday. What it’s going to take is for the A’s to make a commitment to Oakland and tell the people what they want to do.”

You mean something like this, Mark?

Two new venues on a slightly larger footprint than the original

Two new venues on a slightly larger footprint than the original

The A’s response did not waver from their ongoing evaluation process:

Let’s, for a moment, follow Davis’s argument all the way through to its hypothetical end. He is right that he’s been consistent about this. For nearly two years he has wanted the Coliseum torn down immediately, to be replaced by either a football stadium on the original footprint, or two venues next to each other. As you can see from my drawing above, it can be done while taking up only slightly more land than the original Coliseum did. There would even be some advantages in that a grand plaza could be built between the two stadia, leading to the arena.

But is it realistic? Let’s consider how this would progress. Assuming that Lew Wolff and John Fisher could be convinced to go along with this plan, the Coliseum would be torn down and the site graded shortly after the end of the Raiders’ 2017 season – let’s call it a year from now, February 2017. From that point new infrastructure would have to be put in place, followed by actual construction. If they started by the summer, the A’s couldn’t move into their new home until the 2020 season because of a very compressed schedule for an early 2019 opening. The Raiders could potentially open in 2019, but consider that 2019 is the projected opening for the Rams’ stadium in Inglewood – and that site is ready to go, demo already completed. For all intents and purposes, both the Raiders and A’s would be out of Oakland for three years – the A’s probably to AT&T Park, the Raiders to Levi’s or somewhere else. Throughout all of this, Davis would have final say on any development on the 120-acre Coliseum site.

Is there anything in Davis’s history or actions that makes anyone believe Davis is the person to make this happen? He has no experience in development or in the kinds of complex legal and business arrangement requires. His sudden ability to rattle off catchphrases like “opportunity cost” like he just rolled out of a basic microeconomics class isn’t impressing anyone. MacNeil is a good hire, but his presence alone isn’t going to convince investors to subsidize a stadium. And Davis’s desire to stick with ingress/egress/parking as his most important issues in Oakland is downright bizarre. Preserving parking has some nobility to it and is a good way to pander to Raiders fans, especially when compared to the mess that is Levi’s Stadium parking. That argument can’t possibly impress the other 31 owners, who have demonstrated repeatedly that they want deals that improve revenue for teams and for the league as a whole. Parking is worth maybe $4 million a year in revenue. Davis has somehow neglected to talk about revenue as a rationale as every other owner seeking a new stadium has done. Raiders ticket prices will be frozen again for 2016, keeping prices and local revenues essentially flat for the several years since he took the reins. And Mt. Davis will remained tarped to boot. If the Raiders’ revenue position is going to improve, the Raiders will have to charge much higher prices at the new stadium, and in the intervening years they’ll have to test out those higher prices on fans at the Coliseum, the same way the Warriors are doing now in preparation for their new arena. Without a major revenue boost, there isn’t even a business case for building a new stadium, even a small one. The $500 million (+$100 million gift) Davis frequently talks about comes from stadium revenues. If he can’t hit the targets in those loan programs he’ll have hell to pay from the other teams’ owners and his own investment group, in large part because he’ll end up bleeding his golden goose (the NFL’s TV contracts) to pay everything off. And we still don’t know how the $300 million funding gap would be filled.

Historically, none of the old multipurpose stadia have been redeveloped in the manner Davis is suggesting. There generally was a sequence with one tenant staying in the old building while another was built next door, then the old one was demolished and replaced. That was a successful model in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia. While the Bay Area has the luxury of high quality venues that could host the two Oakland teams in a pinch, you’re also allowing them to take both feet out the door for three years. Either team (or both) could back out of any stadium deal at any time (really, please try to force a team to build a stadium when the city is providing no money for it). The only leverage Oakland has is that the Coliseum still exists and remains functional, allowing MLB and the NFL to maintain its inertia regarding both teams. Without the Coliseum, Oakland is practically a non-entity for pro sports. I’m not sure if the politicians gathered around Davis at the presser believe in Davis’s vision. The presser certainly wasn’t the venue to argue against Davis. The theme of the event was unity, even though all they were talking about was a short lease extension. Well, unless we start to see hard numbers and actual advantages for the A’s and Raiders besides preserving parking, we’re a long way from actual unity.

P.S. – Davis is trying to play some sort of PR game by claiming that the Raiders are “hamstrung” by the A’s lease. That’s only true if the only way to build a stadium is to do it Davis’s way. Otherwise the A’s lease can be terminated with two years’ notice. That’s it. It’s not unreasonable for the A’s to ask for some time to get their affairs in order. Unless you’re Tommy Boy, I guess.

One step forward, two steps back for Port of Oakland as major terminal operator ends lease

As the hubbub surrounding Howard Terminal grew to include a major deal between the Port of Oakland and shipping giants Matson and SSA, I wrote about a piece about potential fallout from the deal. If Matson and SSA were to get a favorable deal from the Port, what would happen to Ports America, which operates an even larger terminal in the Outer Harbor, near the Bay Bridge?

Credit: BANG

Ports America property near Bay Bridge to be vacated. Credit: BANG

In 2013, Ports America threatened to sue the Port over the SSA settlement because it threatened their own deal. This week the company decided to terminate its 50-year lease at the Port of Oakland, pulling out of the Port entirely. PA was only 6 years into that 50 year lease. The company chose to expand operations at other West Coast terminals at Tacoma, Los Angeles, and Long Beach.

At a State of the Port address, officials tried to spin the departure as a way to benefit the other remaining operators, who are below capacity and could use the business Ports America is vacating to improve profitability. TraPac, which runs a terminal adjacent to Ports America’s Outer Harbor facility, is nearing a deal with the Port to take over a 44-acre section from PA.

That would leave 166 acres vacant, potentially available for another operator, other types of cargo (bulk, cars), or as Commissioner Bryan Parker indicated, for a ballpark or stadium. That’s in addition to the 50-acre Howard Terminal, which has been targeted time and time again as potential ballpark location. On the other hand, the shipping of coal has been an idea vigorously debated for some time, even floated as an option for HT. I hope it never happens because of serious local environmental issues (West Oakland deals with enough now), but the revenue situation may eventually cause the Port and City to consider it. PA was expected to provide more than $35 million to the Port this year, a quarter of the Port’s projected revenues.

At first glance, 166 acres looks appealing because of its size. That would be plenty for a Raiders stadium and parking. The location at the foot of the Bay Bridge has its appeal. But it’s 2 miles from the West Oakland BART station, and although the BART tracks run next to the property, they’re always on an incline because that’s where the aerial section transitions to the Transbay Tube, so no infill station there. The location is also quite windy.

The Coliseum’s fate notwithstanding, Raiders and A’s fans might welcome the possibility of large, publicly owned parcels like this. However, “free” land isn’t really free. It comes with a price, measured in the number of jobs lost at the Port (up to 1,000 at PAOHT) and lost revenues. San Francisco endured the transition by going whole hog on giving up shipping completely, allowing Oakland to expand and consolidate. Despite efforts to modernize facilities and transform unused lands like the Oakland Army Base to better accommodate the shipping and logistics industry, Oakland finds itself having to make compromises and decisions that negatively affect operations at the Port.  And if a Raiders stadium is proposed at the Outer Harbor, it will surely be challenged by the other shipping companies that surround the property.

Add this location to the list of options, I guess. I know this much: there’s no way in hell the Port is going to get $35 million a year from something sports related, even if they have three stadia on Port property.

P.S. – Before you ask – NO, A BALLPARK CANNOT FACE WEST. Unless you like bad shadows and batters not being able to pick up the ball properly.

News for the week: Tommy Boy Edition (1/16/16)

While Mark Davis drowns his sorrows with some beer and wings, pondering his next move, we should consider what else has been happening this week. After all, unless either the Chargers decide to stay in San Diego, Davis is more-or-less stuck in Oakland. He could conceivably apply to move to a vacated San Diego or San Antonio, but that require going through this rigmarole again with a much smaller payoff. So we’ll let whole football thing settle down for a few weeks. If you want to understand what Oakland is getting ready to offer the Raiders, read my post from November.

Matier and Ross reported earlier this week that Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is pushing Howard Terminal hard for a new ballpark, which is no secret. Included was this nugget:

The city would probably also have to come up with at least $90 million in infrastructure improvements, including funding for a car and foot bridge connecting Howard Terminal to Market Street east of the railroad tracks.

That $90 million figure is no accident. Schaaf is offering the Raiders the same amount for infrastructure at the Coliseum. She’s trying not to play favorites with either team. Of course, there is the danger of spiraling costs, and Oakland is putting itself in the position to carry the debt burden all by itself, since it’s nearing a deal to buy out Alameda County. As costs rise, the question will linger over how much Schaaf is willing to support before the projects become untenable. At least her staff has acknowledged the need for an overpass at Market Street, which was a major issue for me. Frankly, I think they need two overpasses because of Market Street’s location well away from Jack London Square. If you want to get reacquainted with Howard Terminal, read my various posts about the site.

Other news:

  • The City of St. Petersburg’s City Council approved by a 5-3 vote to allow the Rays to explore other stadium sites outside the city limits. That includes all of Pinellas County (St. Pete is the county seat), and neighboring Tampa and Hillsborough County. It’s too early to tell whether this will ultimately lead to the end of the Rays’ tenure in St. Pete, but proponents are at the outset painting this as the team’s best chance to stay in the 4.3 million-strong Tampa Bay Area, which has proved poor for attendance and excellent for TV ratings. As always, the biggest issue is figuring out how to pay for it. Head over to Noah Pransky’s Shadow of the Stadium for complete coverage.
  • The Warriors are pushing back the opening of their arena to 2019 to accommodate the legal challenge by the anti-arena Mission Bay Alliance. MBA also sued UCSF’s Chancellor and now has two lawsuits against the arena project in different jurisdictions. It’s a legal Hail Mary that will largely depend on whether the arena will be afforded an expedited legal review. (SFGate, LA Daily News)
  • The new arena near the The Strip in Las Vegas has a $6 million per year naming rights deal with wireless carrier T-Mobile. (Las Vegas Review Journal)
  • Hartford’s downtown ballpark is delayed and has $10 million, for which no one has figured out how to pay. Thanks to the delays, the AA (Eastern League) Yard Goats will be forced to play on the road for the first six weeks of the season. (Hartford Courant)
  • Walmart announced a slew of store closures, including a store in south San Jose and the Oakland store on Hegenberger near the Coliseum. The store will close Sunday, which led @fanpledge to wonder if it could work as an A’s ballpark site.

Most importantly, the In-N-Out in the northeast corner can stay intact. I’ll cover this site in greater depth later.