Category Archives: Politics

07.12.11
by

News for 7/12/11

Back from a much-needed camping trip, and I’m ready to deal with the anger and frustration. And boy, is there a lot of it. Wouldn’t you be frustrated if the man who holds your future in his hands answers questions in this manner?

Q. What is the latest on the possible relocation to San Jose for the A’s franchise?

COMMISSIONER SELIG: Well, the latest is, I have a small committee who has really assessed that whole situation, Oakland, San Francisco, and it is complex. You talk about complex situations; they have done a terrific job. I know there are some people who think it’s taken too long and I understand that. I’m willing to accept that. But you make decisions like this; I’ve always said, you’d better be careful. Better to get it done right than to get it done fast. But we’ll make a decision that’s based on logic and reason at the proper time.

Selig held steady on other pressing topics, such as the Dodgers, the CBA, realignment, and instant replay.

Joshua “emperor nobody” Chase and Tyler “Blez” Bleszinski have written distinctive, impassioned calls for action and change for the A’s. Both are must reads.

2009 first round pick Grant Green was named MVP of the Futures game last night. After crushing what he thought was going to be a home run against the wall, keeping him to a double, Green said this:

“I’m happy getting doubles. It’s the type of thing where I know I’m not going to be a 20-homer guy in Oakland. Not in that ballpark.”

Imagine if teams could trade draft rights in baseball the same way they could in the other three leagues. Pick signability would take yet another hit for the A’s as long as the Coliseum remained their home.

Despite the A’s struggles on the field, TV ratings at CSN California have seen a slight rise annually from 1.23 last summer to 1.33 this summer. That combined with the slight rise in attendance should mean something, shouldn’t it? If so, what?

Even as cities are looking to sue the state over the death of redevelopment, at least three cities are looking at ways to potentially work within the system. So far that includes the three most prominent cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. Both Oakland and San Jose have said initially that they can’t afford to pay the price to keep their RDA’s functioning. We’ll see about that.

The Florida Marlins are closing off the upper deck at Sun Life Stadium for the rest of the year, with the exceptions of a dog-oriented game in August and the final home game ever in the stadium. Looks like fans are holding out until the next year in the new, air-conditioned space, which is oh-so-Miami sports fan.

The funeral for fallen Rangers fan Shannon Stone was held on Monday in Brownwood, TX. The Rangers and Brownwood have set up memorial funds for Stone’s family, to which the A’s contributed $5,000.

As part of its continued correction, Cisco Systems may lay off anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 jobs before the end of the year, up to 14% of its current workforce. A reduction of 5,000 jobs would save $1 billion in costs and increase profitability 8% in 2012, according to Bloomberg.

There’s a half-serious movement emanating from SoCal to have 13 counties secede from California to form their own largely conservative state. Secession efforts have occurred in the past, mostly from the also largely conservative counties in the northernmost section of the state. It’s not really relevant to the ballpark or baseball economics discussion except that it provides an interesting “what if” scenario if it ever came to pass. Would the new state, which would include Orange and San Diego counties, be more or less friendly to potential franchise relocation candidates? How would they relate to teams who have outdated facilities?

Lastly, it appears that there’s a post-doubleheader tailgate happening on Saturday and a slew of activities before the first game. Given that those of us who are attending will be unable to leave the stadium between games, how about a mini meetup during the intermission? I’m open to suggestions as to where in the O.co Coliseum.

07.04.11
by

Revisiting 980 Park

You may remember that last September, Jeffrey did an overview of architect Bryan Grunwald’s 980 Park site. An innovative solution, the ballpark would be placed on an expansive concrete deck above I-980 as the freeway becomes a wide urban canyon as it passes downtown before it becomes CA-24. Thanks to Grunwald’s persistence, the 980 Park site is an alternative on the Victory Court EIR. Since we know it’s part of the discussion from a process standpoint, it’s time to take a better look at what 980 Park’s advantages and disadvantages are.

Grunwald uses Fenway Park as the model. The park is above I-980, bounded by 14th and 18th Streets to the north and south, and Brush and Castro Streets to the east and west.

Looks like everything works, right? Not so fast, my friend. While many detractors focused on the terrorism fear angle of putting a ballpark above a big piece of transportation infrastructure, that’s not really that much of a problem. SFO’s International Terminal is built directly over the main access road. Madison Square Garden and Boston’s TD Garden are on top of heavily used train stations. Parts of Target Field, including the plaza between the ballpark and arena, are above a freeway segment. No, the biggest problem with 980 Park is the size and shape of the site.

In the picture above (provided by Bryan Grunwald), Fenway appears to fit almost perfectly into the site. After further investigation, not everything is at it seems. As an urban canyon, this freeway segment may be one of the widest in the nation thanks to the liberal use of ramps, shoulders, and landscaping. At its widest (Brush St. curb to Castro St. curb), the width is 450 feet. That’s an amazing amount, and that vastness probably led to the physical and psychological separation of West Oakland from the rest of the city. As Grunwald sees it, 980 Park is a chance to reconnect West Oakland with the rest of the city, right that postwar wrong for good. Going back to dimensions, 450 feet is great for any number of commercial projects. It’s not so great for a ballpark. To keep things in perspective, remember that 450 feet is only 10 feet longer than dead center at old Tiger Stadium.

Width of the site varies from 450 feet (yellow line) down to 300 feet (18th St.). Freeway on/off-ramps would have to be modified per Grunwald's plan.

Original yellow line indicates 450 feet (width of 980 Park site). Additional lines show actual dimensions of Fenway from the Green Monster to the end of the opposite grandstand plus additional infrastructure.

The yellow line in the above picture runs from the Fisk Pole south 450 feet. It terminates short of the back of the grandstand. This makes sense when you consider what goes into making the ballpark. Start with 310 (er, 308) from the Monster to the plate and 50 feet to the first row. That leaves only 90 feet for seats and circulation on that side. That’s simply not enough. Osborn Engineering was incredibly resourceful in dealing with the lack of space at Fenway by sticking the main concourse underneath the lower deck. They also crammed in as many seats as possible into the space by having narrow seats (18″) and row treads (30″) in the grandstand area, and if you’ve ever sat in those seats at Fenway you’ve noticed.

At the back of the lower deck grandstand is a narrow corridor for circulation and a "curb" on which people can stand, back to a fence. Upper deck and suites were added much later. Notice how much bigger the seats look from the upper deck club to the front of the lower deck to the back?

The advent of modern standards such as the “growing” American and ADA requirements make it impractical to implement Fenway now. Cisco Field at Diridon may be highly influenced by certain elements of Fenway, but it’s not going to be cramped like Fenway. Fenway’s field is rotated relative to the grandstand and street grid, yet its LF line lines up almost perfectly with the Meridian. Unlike my idea for rotating Cisco Field to expose more fair field dimensions, no amount of rotation can make up for the lack of space at 980 Park. It works at Diridon because the shortest dimension available on the irregularly sized lot is 570 feet, 120 feet more than at 980 Park. Curious about how this disparity works out to other small ballparks throughout the country, I whipped out Google Earth and used its virtual tape measure at several more space-constrained current and former ballparks. What I found was a pattern.

Shortest dimension when accounting for playing field (LF/RF line) in calculation. When possible, figure only includes ballpark grandstand and does not account for setbacks or sidewalks. Acreage includes field, grandstand(s), and everything else within exterior walls. Parking lots and ancillary buildings are not included.

There may be ways to widen the 980 Park site. Brush and Castro Streets are essentially three-lane, one-way frontage roads with parking on one side. Grunwald’s plan could reclaim one lane on each side, adding 15 feet to each side. However, the 450-foot measurement goes from curb to curb, and it will be necessary to have some amount of setback for sidewalks, trees, etc. That requirement alone would eat up the two reclaimed lanes. Beyond that, it’s hard to see what other changes could be made to fit a reasonably-sized ballpark. The field might be able to be rotated so that home plate sits directly above the median of the freeway, and the pitcher and batter face up/down the freeway. That would put the foul poles at Brush and Castro, leaving precious little space for circulation and creating limitations of the seating configuration. It’s a problem for a real architect like Bryan Grunwald, not a blogger enthusiast like me, to figure out. I don’t necessarily think it’s insurmountable. It is definitely a challenge, to put it mildly. And it would most assuredly be a first. Good luck, Bryan.

07.01.11
by

News for 7/1/11

Despite the bittersweet tone of yesterday (thanks for the memories Ellie), there was a little humor to be found before the game (via the Chronicle’s John Shea):

Clubhouse blaze: Before the game, a fire broke out near Brian Fuentes‘ locker, the result of an overcharged battery for the reliever’s remote-control airplane. Several players rushed to put it out, as did Isao Hirooka (Matsui’s PR guy), equipped with a five-gallon container of drinking water.

In a smoky clubhouse, managing general partner Lew Wolff sat at a table, sipped on a root beer float and cracked a couple of jokes about how this could have been his ticket to a new ballpark, playfully chiding his players for extinguishing the flames.

Clubhouse manager Steve Vucinich approached Wolff and whispered, “Nobody saw you set that, did they?”

Briefly: Wolff expects to meet with Oakland mayor Jean Quan, who has thoughts for a new Oakland ballpark, in the next month but said, “Don’t read too much into it.” …

Several hours after the A’s late rally fell short, Oakland passed its budget with Quan as the deciding vote. The budget includes the sale of HJKCC, funds the public library system, and is heavily dependent on approval of concessions by the police union, which are to be voted on next week.

Craig Calcaterra feels our pain.

Bankruptcy hearings for the Dodgers are set to stretch out until next January. Bud Selig will be deposed by Frank McCourt’s lawyers in two weeks. That should be fun.

Do you believe David Stern’s line that 22 teams in the NBA lost money going into the lockout? Think again.

Saturday’s Earthquakes-Red Bulls contest will be played at Stanford Stadium, to be followed by a fireworks show. Coincidentally, the A’s play the Snakes at the Coliseum at the same time, also to be followed by a fireworks show. Even though I already have a ticket for the A’s game, I may ditch it to go to the Quakes match instead solely because I’ve never seen a soccer match at Stanford since it was rebuilt.

China’s 800+ mile (roughly Seattle to San Francisco) high speed rail train between Beijing and Shanghai launched last week. After a decade of planning, the line took three years to construct. A one-way fare from Beijing to Shanghai costs as little as $85 and takes less than five hours to complete the run.

P.S. – I wanted to add a commentary item to chew on as we head into the weekend. Over the past few days there have been renewed calls on the blog for alternative sites, such as 980 Park, Fremont, or Dublin/Pleasanton. Let’s consider the process before putting these out there. Selig’s panel spent an unspecified amount of time looking at sites, not just in Oakland, but throughout and beyond the specified stadium territory for the A’s (Alameda/Contra Costa counties). For whatever reason, in 2009 four Oakland sites, three centered around downtown, were presented. Those were whittled down to the Victory Court site. Now I’ll repeat this again: Out of the entire A’s territory. This may be because of political forces in Oakland pushing it to stay in Oakland and the panel going along with it (some were upset when the 2001 HOK study included Fremont and Pleasanton). Or it could be the panel said they preferred a downtown site and no other site within the territory provided that. Whatever the cause, Victory Court is the choice in the territory. 980 Park is an EIR alternative, but there’s no indicator as to whether or not MLB takes the site seriously. I think it’s safe to say that with the Coliseum being dismissed early on and no implicit desire to seek a suburban locale, for Oakland and the A’s existing territory it’s Victory Court or bust. That may be why the search was formally expanded to include San Jose, since there’s a downtown there too. I don’t know, I’m just trying to make sense of it.

06.29.11
by

Quick notes from Wolff-Townsend interview

Update 11:45 PM – Mark Purdy asks questions of both Wolff and Reed.

Wolff’s reactions to Townsend’s questions:

  • Not critical about Selig. Is resigned to the length of the process.
  • T-rights isn’t “us against the Giants.” It’s a baseball matter.
  • Washington-Baltimore is not comparable to Santa Clara County, and has not been discussed as comparable.
  • Acknowledges cities’ financial problems. Emphasizes ballpark will be built with private funds (does not talk about public land or infrastructure).
  • Continues to be in touch with San Jose and Mayor Reed.
  • Considers real estate transactions for Diridon small in cost relative to ballpark investment.
  • Maintains there is no Plan B, Plan A being San Jose.
  • Says that there is no financial plan for building in Oakland. Infrastructure costs in Oakland and Fremont are “not in the cards anymore.”
  • Oakland Mayor Quan and Wolff have been talking, will meet next month.
  • OT – Feels that 49ers and Raiders should share a stadium.
  • San Jose site is the only that appears to be ready (EIR, land acquisition).
  • Considers being an owner a privilege.
  • Says the A’s have a good fanbase, could be bigger.
  • Likes the challenge of figuring the plan out, but he’s getting older.
  • Hints for the first time that if situation drags past the point where he can see it through, his son (Keith) and staff will do it.

Not much from the interview, but the Quan and succession stuff is revealing.

06.29.11
by

Onus

Update 4:50 PM – The League of California Cities, a redevelopment and city lobbying group, is going straight to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of the new laws.

Update 2:40 PM – Governor Brown has signed the twin kill redevelopment bills.

Reminder: Lew Wolff will be on The Chris Townsend Show (95.7 FM) at 5:30 PM today.

At the end of Howard Bryant’s first column on the state of the A’s, it might have been easy to lose track of something Lew Wolff said.

Though the clock is ticking on the A’s, sources also say the committee has not expressed any time pressure to present Selig of its findings.

“That’s very true,” Wolff said. “The pressure isn’t on them. It’s on me.”

Starting today, the pressure will definitely be on Wolff – despite the fact that this pressure will come from circumstances beyond his control. At the Capitol, Republicans briefly delayed the inevitable passage of the budget, which was constructed from a combination of realignment and suspect revenue projections. The final package includes the two redevelopment bills (one to kill, one for ransom/rebirth) that were passed by the legislature two weeks ago. Cities throughout the state are lawyering up, though it’s hard to see what settlement could arise since any compromise on the state’s part would have consequences for the budget.

Legal challenges or not, all cities have to deal with the repercussions of the budget passage. Redevelopment advocates have called the twin bills little more than an extortion scheme to allow them to continue to work, and they’re not wrong. As mentioned last Tuesday, here are the amounts that would have to be paid for cities and counties to keep their RDA’s functional:

  • Alameda County: $7.7 million
  • Fremont: $9 million
  • Oakland: $39.7 million
  • San Diego: $69.8 million
  • San Francisco: $24.6 million
  • San Jose: $47.6 million
  • Santa Clara: $11.4 million

The figures are the extortion amounts. See how the Oakland amount is nearly as high as the San Jose amount even though it has less than half the population? That’s because so much land in Oakland (most of the flats) is in one redevelopment zone or another. Oakland North reports that the ransom payment won’t be factored into whatever budget is passed by the City of Oakland, which is understandable since it’s such a recent happening. As of this writing, Oakland is still choosing one of several budget proposals to approve, with the tough battle to gain union concessions won by Mayor Jean Quan. For Oakland, the issue with redevelopment becomes a matter of what they’ll be allowed to do once October 1 hits. Unlike San Jose, Oakland hasn’t gone to the trouble of winding down ORA’s activities, which makes extracting ORA from City Hall difficult. Currently, 17 police officers have their salaries paid by ORA, as well as half the salaries of the mayor and city council (who serve on the ORA board). As they scramble to figure out how some of those needs will be met, it’s not hard to see how actual projects which haven’t started in earnest could fall by the wayside.

Worse, not operating a RDA doesn’t mean that the state won’t get its pound of flesh. It’ll still entitled to the $40 million, only it gets to decide at a later point how it will extract the money from the city. If a city decides it can “play ball” it can pay the vig this year and a smaller amount for next three years, and whatever’s leftover can be used for RDA uses by a successor agency, or as I called it previously, “Son of RDA”. If a city decides it can’t play ball, a successor agency will be created for them, much the same way a defendant can get a court-appointed public defender. That agency’s sole purpose will be to tally up and distribute tax increment as it comes in, none going to new projects. Most importantly, in the can’t-play-ball scenario cities won’t be able to issue new debt. That’s a killer for Oakland, which was counting on being able to tap into new bonds to pay for some of the Victory Court project (land/infrastructure) cost. It’s even more important now that ORA had to absorb some of the city’s budgetary cost by acquiring HJKCC. Without that ability to issue new debt, Oakland’s liable to say, at “Our hands are tied, sorry we couldn’t do more.” And they’d be perfectly within their rights to do so. Thanks for killing the A’s again, Governor Moonbeam.

Then again, there may be a loophole, one that some of the largest RDA’s have been looking to exploit – and one that may have the biggest legal test. When Oakland initiated $100 million in property transfers from ORA back to the city two weeks ago, my response was, “What took so long?” Los Angeles transferred $1 billion worth of assets in a similar fashion in January. While these transfers may have occurred before the 2011-12 fiscal year begins, language written into ABX 26, the redevelopment killing bill, allows state-appointed auditors to determine if any transactions done January 1, 2011 or later (effectively after Brown took office) to be reviewed. What that means for those assets is anyone’s guess at this point, and probably will be the focus of more legal wrangling should the state start looking to liquidate assets to get its revenue.

There’s also the case of San Jose’s newly and hastily created SJ Diridon Development Authority. All thats missing from the name is “Re”. The whole affair seems like an overreaction to Brown, though there may be some hidden wisdom in there somewhere. Regardless of whether work is done through the skeleton crew at SJRA or SJDDA, at some point San Jose will also have to decide if it wants to pay to play. Recently, Mayor Chuck Reed and Lew Wolff have been adamant that they will find the necessary funds to cover the rest of the ballpark land acquisition and infrastructure change, $27+ million total. However, San Jose will also have to pay its $47 million soon if they want to be clear of the state’s reach. That would preclude merely piecemealing the remaining land sales/buys, as they have suggested. Instead, the onus may be on Wolff to deliver on the $89 million price of the Airport West (Earthquakes Stadium) land renegotiated last December. That money isn’t due until 2015, yet here we are with pushed up deadlines thanks to the death of redevelopment. $89 million would provide enough cash for SJ to complete its work and fund other infrastructure in the area it wants to be known as Silicon Valley’s Times Square (I thought it was Grand Central?).

Soon, a coalition of the ten largest cities in the state (including SF, SJ, and Oakland) will put together a lawsuit to vigorously challenge Brown’s redevelopment pay-to-play-or-die scheme. Their case is supported by the passage of Proposition 22 last November, which prohibits state-based redirects of property taxes. Legal murkiness started during the gubernatorial transition when Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown signed off on declaring a fiscal state of emergency, which set the framework for the redevelopment reform bills. Which has greater precedence, a new law or an even newer declared state of emergency? That’s what the courts will have to decide.

06.27.11
by

News for 6/27/11

You should be following CNBC Sports Business reporter Darren Rovell on Twitter just for the knowledge drops. Today you get the bonus of all bonuses: Rovell ripped his pants going through an airport security checkpoint and is dealing with the embarrassment.

Unlike Rovell, Frank McCourt apparently feels no embarrassment. He had the Dodgers file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a Delaware court today, in what could be interpreted as one last-ditch attempt to maintain control over the team. $150 million in additional short-term financing may be coming from a JP Morgan-run hedge fund, with a whopping 10% interest rate (though it’s not a worse deal than what the Mets are getting). An initial bankruptcy hearing will be held tomorrow. Both Jamie McCourt and Bud Selig have expressed disapproval with the bankruptcy filing. For his part, Selig is said to be offering a better interim financing deal than what JP Morgan is giving Frank McCourt. Selig’s strategy has been for some time to do nothing and give McCourt enough rope to hang himself. By allowing McCourt to perform this maneuver, Selig has given his combatant just a little more rope.

Governor Jerry Brown and leading Democrats in the California Legislature gave a brief statement in support of a new budget which, through a series of cuts, cover up to 75% of the remaining deficit for the upcoming fiscal year. The rest is a $5 billion can that Brown is kicking down the road. Brown is now aiming for a November 2012 election date for tax extensions he was gunning for this year. The press conference was incredibly light on details. Naturally, Republicans want nothing to do with the budget plan. Oh, and then there’s this from Sacramento Bee Capitol reporter Kevin Yamamura:

Already-approved redevelopment bills will go to Guv as part of new Dem #cabudget.

The new budget has been designed to pass without GOP votes, just as the previous one did before Brown vetoed it. Redevelopment interests are looking to file lawsuits as early as this week.

Oakland City Council is expected to approve the sale of the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center to the city’s redevelopment agency for $28.3 million, in an effort to bridge the city’s budget gap. Not known is exactly how much of the sale proceeds will be used for the budget, with all three budget proposals using different amounts.

In radio news, Lew Wolff will be on The Chris Townsend Show Wednesday. 95.7 also hired former 49er cornerback Eric Davis to start at the station on August 1, at which point we can only hope that the NFL lockout is over and Davis can talk training camps. I bet they’ll figure out a way to team Davis up with Rick Tittle, who will do the 1-3 slot on Wednesday as part of a cavalcade of hosts, including CSN’s Jim Kozimor and Brodie Brazil today, Dave Benz and Scott Reiss later in the week.

06.23.11
by

Brown speaks out about redevelopment

Turns out that Governor Jerry Brown and Lew Wolff may agree on something after all.

Too bad it’s not something that can help the A’s anytime soon.

Speaking at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference in SF, Brown addressed the equally touchy subjects of CEQA (EIR process) and redevelopment. About the former:

Brown spoke about his time running Oakland, where he says he received a crash course in local politics.

“Every project was opposed by somebody,” he said. “I never had the experience of so much mindless resistance.”

His principal goal in Oakland was the creation of market-rate housing into the city’s core, which Brown thought would bring more disposable income.

It’s important to note that the opposition hasn’t shown up yet to the Victory Court project because nothing of significant substance has yet been presented. When it does, well, we’ll see how steely the collective resolve is to build a ballpark.

As a developer, Wolff has complained as frequently about CEQA as he has about the Coliseum’s warts. Brown no doubt felt the heat when eminent domain was used under his watch to acquire the Uptown site, not to mention the lawsuits and other challenges the project (built by his friends at Forest City) faced. All of that was done under the CEQA umbrella.

Brown also reaffirmed his position on choosing other budgetary needs over redevelopment. Perhaps some of the reporters in the Capitol were correct in saying that the two “compromise” bills that were passed by he Legislature but not sent to the Governor would be vetoed on the grounds that Brown felt they didn’t go far enough.

And the beat goes on…

06.21.11
by

News for 6/21/11

The NFL and NBA are going hot and heavy with CBA discussions.

  • Latest proposal from the NFL (which has yet to be voted on by the owners) would guarantee a straight 48% share to the players, and would create a system in which all teams’ payrolls would approach the salary cap amount every year. The straight percentage is different from the previous system, which had the teams take $1 billion off the top for stadium expenses.
  • The NBA is proposing a “flex cap” which has a salary floor, max, and a sort of “supermax.” Previously, that upper limit was the luxury tax threshold, which if breached would require a dollar-for-dollar tax on additional payroll. The players consider the as-yet-not-enumerated upper limit a hard cap, since it provides a payroll ceiling. The two sides are early in their discussions.

Governor Brown is expected to announce an alternative to the budget he vetoed last week. Plans may include a revised (or not) take on redevelopment.

The California Redevelopment Association released a spreadsheet detailing the amounts that would have to be paid by various redevelopment agencies if AB 26 and 27 were signed into law by Brown:

  • Alameda County:  $7.7 million
  • Fremont:  $9 million
  • Oakland:  $39.7 million
  • San Diego:  $69.8 million
  • San Francisco:  $24.6 million
  • San Jose:  $47.6 million
  • Santa Clara:  $11.4 million

Remember that if the cities are not able to make these payments, they would not be able to issue additional bonds or otherwise acquire debt.

As initially reported by Rich Lieberman, KTRB is switching to a Spanish sports radio format, courtesy of ESPN Deportes. Once fresh capital is put into transmitter maintenance and facilities, I’d expect the 50,000-watt station to go after the… Giants. The Giants have Spanish broadcasts split between a 5 kW station in Pittsburg and a 10kW station in SF that drops to 500 W after sunset. Assuming the station got enough care and feeding, it could be a formidable player.

 

06.19.11
by

Sorry Harold Camping, armageddon is actually in 2014

I’m amused reading Ray Ratto’s Twitter feed this morning. He’s fielding questions about the A’s stadium situation, perhaps in response to Chronicle Sports Editor Al Saracevic’s column on the front page of the Sporting Green today (paper/iPad app only until Tuesday). Ratto’s staying consistent in his belief that the Wolff/Fisher group doesn’t have the money to build in San Jose, making it the only reason the move hasn’t happened. As far as I can tell he’s the only media guy who has this particular opinion, though that shouldn’t discount it. It’s simply one of many takes on the subject.

Saracevic laments the possible loss of all three teams currently playing at the Coliseum. The A’s would leave for San Jose or Las Vegas (we’ve gone over that). The Raiders would be lured south to Los Angeles again, whereas the Warriors would head back over the bridge to San Francisco. The 49ers deal in Santa Clara will fall apart, forcing the team to work with SF again. The column is mostly prognostication without much depth, so like any opinion (including mine), take it with a grain of salt.

Howard Bryant mistakenly claimed that the A’s lease runs out after the 2012. In actuality, they could leave after the 2012 if they had a place to play. Since they won’t, they’ll be playing at the Coliseum through their last extension year, 2013. The Raiders’ lease also ends following the 2013 season. What happens in 2014? Jeffrey, Doug Boxer, and I puzzled over that question a few weeks ago. It’s been brought up in the comments with greater frequency recently.

With multiple tenants comes moving parts for stadium deals. When the Raiders sat down with the Coliseum Authority and hammered out their new stadium plan, the assumption was that the A’s would leave after the 2013 season for either downtown Oakland or San Jose. We’re now at the point were no permanent new home could be opened until 2015 at the earliest in either city due to the political process.

Oakland has 50% power in the Coliseum Authority relationship, and other than rejecting Lew Wolff’s most recent request for a lease extension, the city tends to rubber-stamp whatever the Authority does. By supporting what will probably be a $1 billion stadium at the Coliseum complex (plus carried over debt from the old Coliseum), nearly half a billion for Victory Court, and silently pushing for a new Oakland-friendly owner to take over should Wolff/Fisher give up the San Jose project completely due to frustration, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. Honestly, who could blame them? No private interests have ever invested a combined $2 billion in Oakland in this manner.

The harsh reality is Oakland will be fortunate to get $500 million in these economic times. (So would San Jose.) Both the A’s and Raiders projects will require varying amounts of redevelopment money, which as I’ve written several times, is near extinction. These projects have become much riskier and harder to pull off than ever before. It might be best if Oakland were to focus on one project it can really do well, instead of two in which having fewer resources available for both makes it more likely to half-ass both. The Raiders have a leg up in that the Coliseum Authority has its own ability to raise bonds, and with a few changes to the city charter could be given redevelopment powers over the complex. That isn’t possible at Victory Court, since Oakland is carrying the burden alone. Eventually, Oakland and the Authority are gonna have to make a decision about who to extend, whether for one year or several. Given their track record, it looks more likely that someone or something will make the decision for them.

As for the A’s, 2014 is a particularly dicey situation. Other than AT&T Park, there is no MLB-ready facility in the Bay Area if the Coli were taken away (natch). I went to a San Jose Giants game last week and tried to envision it with 10,000 extra seats so that it could host some MLB games. It didn’t work. I suppose Wolff could build a temporary facility alongside the Quakes stadium at Airport West and move some of the materials over when the time comes, but it seems like a logistical nightmare. If Bud Selig can’t convince the Coliseum Authority to re-up with the A’s for one year, we may see the A’s in some kind of yearlong barnstorming tour, a la the 2004 Expos.

06.17.11
by

Howard Bryant reviews “high stakes game of chicken”

This one’s a must read, people.

mlb_bay_battle_576

Howard Bryant may be a Boston guy through and through, but he cut his teeth at the Merc’s sports department for years as the A’s beat writer. He’s also written some excellent books on baseball: Juicing the Game, Shut Out, and his most recent work, The Last Hero: A Life of Henry Aaron. Now he’s taken some time to write about the future of the A’s, and it’s fairly comprehensive (though he gets the last lease year wrong – it’s 2013, and he confuses Coliseum North with Uptown).

There’s too much meat in the column to cherry pick any one passage, so I’ll leave it up to you to read the whole thing. Then come back here to comment. As Bill King often said of the occasional high scoring game, “this one has become a donnybrook.”