Category Archives: Politics

01.24.11
by

Talking legal actions (again)

A piece by The Bay Citizen’s Zusha Elinson suggests that Oakland may have a legal bullet at its disposal in its efforts to keep the A’s in Oakland. Elinson cites specific language in the original lease that may help Oakland:

“Licensee [A’s] shall not permit or cause to occur any event that may result in the transfer of its Franchise or any of its Home Games to any other city or location or do or fail to do anything which will cause its right to play major league professional baseball in the Stadium to be lost, impaired or transferred to any other city or location.”

I emailed Elinson to figure out where he got this language, as I couldn’t find it in the Seventh Amendment to the Coliseum Lease, which I posted over a year ago. He sent me a 121-page document which, lo and behold, contains the original 1995 lease agreement, the First and Second Amendments, and a bunch of exhibits pertaining to the various improvements that would be made for both the A’s and Raiders. If you’re interested in the grisly details, here’s a link (PDF). The doc has also been added to the Links section on the right. In my rushed reading of it so far, I found it quite illuminating.

Back to Elinson’s article. He spoke to two sides on the SF divide. Jim Hunt represented the Giants in both 1978 and 1992 in their attempted moves to Toronto and Tampa Bay, respectively. Louise Renne was SF City Attorney in 1992 and fought to keep the Giants in town until a new ownership group could be found, effort led by Walter Shorenstein. As would be expected, the two legal eagles don’t agree as to how effective the attempted legal roadblocks were in keeping the team, though it’s likely that at least employing a stall of some kind helped buy the City time in both cases.

Elinson goes on to suggest that Oakland may be able to employ a similar strategy based on similar language in both the Giants’ leases with SF and the A’s lease in Oakland. However, it’s hard to imagine how this would work. Unlike the Giants, the A’s have multiple ways of ending the lease with minimal if any penalty, either by simply staying through the end (2013) or by paying a termination fee if they want to leave anytime in the next three years.

After struggling to find the specific clause in the lease that Elinson cited, I found it in Section 9, titled “LICENSEE’S COVENANTS.” The term licensee refers to the A’s, licensor the Coliseum Authority. The section mostly has to do with keeping the A’s from losing its membership in the American League. As far-fetched as that sounds, it makes sense. If the A’s were routinely going with $10 million payrolls and otherwise making the team look like it wasn’t worthy of being in the majors (some would say this is happening), then Oakland might have just cause. That’s not really here nor there at this point. Section 9.2, which contains the language we’re discussing, is as follows:

9.2 American League Franchise. Licensee shall do all acts required to maintain its membership in good standing in the American League and to comply with all Rules, Bylaws, Regulations and Requirements of Major League Baseball and the American League. Licensee shall notify Licensor promptly after receipt of any information that Licensee is the subject of any action or contemplated action by the American League or any other person or entity that could affect Licensee’s right to continued membership in good standing. No change in the rights and privileges of Licensee as an American League member including the area or exclusivity of the Franchise Territory shall in any way affect Licensee’s obligations under this License. Except as authorized pursuant to Section 3, Section 16 or Section 22, Licensee shall not permit or cause to occur any event that may result in the transfer of its Franchise or any of its Home Games to any other city or location or do or fail to do anything which will cause its right to play major league professional baseball in the Stadium to be lost, impaired or transferred to any other city or location.

Before I do my non-legal (I am not a lawyer or legal expert) reading of this, I must point out that Section 3 has to do with use of the stadium, parking and surroundings, Section 16 has to do with damage done to the stadium due to force majeure (acts of God), and Section 22 deals with condemnation of the stadium (due to deterioration of some kind or eminent domain).

When I first read the part Elinson clipped (in italics), I interpreted it to mean that the A’s can’t do anything to the stadium that would prevent them from playing games there while the lease was in effect. For instance, the Quakes occasionally play games at the Coliseum. The A’s aren’t allowed to cover the baseball diamond with grass for a Quakes game right before an A’s homestand starts, since the time and cost to reconvert the field for baseball use would prevent the A’s from playing there for a lengthy period.

A broader reading of the language could potentially include actions taken by the A’s off the field, such as discussions with San Jose (or even Fremont), which would move the team away from the Coliseum. However, I think this is much too broad an interpretation. If that were correct, it would preclude the A’s from even talking to other cities about future moves even as they terminated the lease by one of the methods described previously. Terms of a lease don’t bind a team any longer than the length of the lease, whatever that is, and most leases have a termination fee. It’s really all a matter of whether or not that fee is too high to stomach (hello, Tampa Bay). Besides, the A’s couldn’t be in San Jose anytime before 2014 due to the lengthy ballpark construction process.

Since I am in no way a legal expert, I can’t say whether or not my take on this matter has any validity. It is clear that from reading the full agreement and the amendments, there are few contractual obligations keeping the A’s in Oakland. Unlike the Giants back then or the Rays today, the A’s aren’t locked in. They’re free agents after a few years at best. If this bit of language is the basis for a lawsuit to keep the A’s in town, things don’t look particularly good for Oakland. Then again, we’ve heard that their strategy is the same as SF’s was: threaten with a lawsuit, stall and hope for a moneybags savior. And we know how that turned out.

01.19.11
by

SJ RDA Board Special Meeting – Decision coming Tuesday

Update 1/20 12:15 AM – Governor Brown spoke at League of California Cities event, indicating that the recent moves by cities and RDAs to protect and assign redevelopment funds may be illegal.

Brown characterized the difficulty the state faces this way:

“I have to tell you, none of the choices are easy,” Brown said at a hotel across from the Capitol. “We haven’t got the votes on the budget. And you might win on redevelopment.

“But then we take something else away. And then the wheels come off. We don’t know exactly how this is all going to unfold,” the new Democratic governor said. He invited local officials to suggest alternatives.

Wonder if Brown will listen to multiple voices calling for oil severance (drilling) fees.

San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency Board (the City Council/Mayor) have pushed the big item – how to protect RDA funds – out to next Tuesday (1/25). A new co-op agreement to be written by the City Attorney should be available by then, and they will be able to vote on how RDA responsibilities will continue.

RDA head Harry Mavrogenes hinted that the co-op agreement would allow all existing and under contract projects under the control of the RDA would be transferred to the City. He didn’t say anything beyond that. I take that to mean that San Jose will take a page out of Los Angeles’ book and allow for the creation for a successor agency (which Gov. Brown has said would be allowed).

Mayor Reed mentioned that he and the other mayors of the 10 largest cities in the state would meet with Brown on January 26. Whether this means they’d be throwing their weight around or groveling isn’t clear. One person in the crowd mentioned that the City’s lobbyist in the Capitol has been keeping tabs on whether any new legislation that would affect RDAs is in motion. So far no dice, but anything could happen at any time after this week. Whatever bill the legislature and the governor approve could stop RDA activities immediately, it could stop things retroactive to a specific date. They’re that scared. Reed laid out the City’s position:

(The state) Taking money this year and promising to give it back next year is one of the oldest tricks in the budget gimmick book. And I can’t put any faith that if they take redevelopment funds that we’ll ever get a nickel of it back, that Santa Clara County will ever see a nickel of it back, because the legislature doesn’t have a great track record of doing that even though they have promised it.

The upshot is that Tuesday is the day of reckoning and will be followed by the regular City Council hearing to approve the new co-op agreement. So far I so no dissension among the ranks, leading me to believe that it’ll be approved. Tuesday also happens to be the date of the Good Neighbor session, so the Council Chambers should be full of RDA “supporters” and detractors.

As far as the ballpark goes, the RDA and/or City would have to be under contract with the A’s really really soon to be able to escape the raid. As much as the cities are talking about taking legal action to stop the raids, getting an injunction is not exactly a viable short or long term strategy, so they can’t assume that they’ll be able to get a lengthy enough delay to complete certain projects. They need to plan for several years from now.

I wonder how often Selig is getting calls from Wolff about this. Selig is not known for reacting well under pressure.

01.18.11
by

Redevelopment Agencies hit DEFCON-1

Last week, Los Angeles took steps to protect nearly $1 Billion in RDA funds from the state. Now it’s everyone else’s turn. Redevelopment agencies all over California are scrambling to come up with strategies to keep themselves intact or insulate themselves from the inevitable raid or shutdown. In Escondido, the RDA is debating whether or not to raise bonds for its $50 million ballpark project early. The Merc’s John Woolfork reports that tomorrow, San Jose has scheduled an emergency meeting of its RDA to figure out its next steps. There’s only one major agenda item:

1.1 In response to the Governor’s proposed State budget package and proposals for FY 2011-12, which include recommending the elimination of redevelopment agencies “to realign the delivery of state services to counties and local governments” and eliminate a projected State deficit of $25.4 billion the City Manager and Agency Executive Director recommend the following actions intended to provide flexibility to fund the Agency’s existing debt obligation and to reaffirm the Agency’s obligations and appropriation of funding for its previously approved FY 2010-11 Operating Budget, its Capital Improvement Plan and other contractual obligations.

Recommendation:

(a) City Council and Agency Board by motion, makes a good faith, reasonable determination by a 2/3 vote of the body that an issue has arisen that must be resolved in less than 4 days. (8 votes required)

(b) Approval of a Cooperation Agreement between the City of San Jose and the San Jose Redevelopment Agency relating to funding certain Redevelopment Agency capital improvements, public improvements and obligations located within currently designated redevelopment project areas.

(c) Adoption of resolutions by the Agency Board, the San Jose Financing Authority Board and the City Council authorizing the Agency Executive Director, the City Manager, the Executive Director of the Financing Authority and the Housing Department Director to negotiate and execute agreements necessary to protect and secure existing obligations and to acquire, construct, develop and implement projects specified in the Agency and City’s approved capital improvement plan and City’s 5 year affordable housing plan as specified herein.

(d) Adoption of a resolution by the City Council making certain findings and determinations as may be necessary.

(e) Authorize the Director of Housing to negotiate and execute agreements in the amount of $1.43 million of Low- and Moderate-Income Housing funds (“20% funds”) to Eden Housing or its affiliate for the Ford & Monterey Special Needs Housing Project (“Project”) in order to meet federal Stimulus (“NSP2”) timeframes; and make a finding that the use of 20% Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds outside a redevelopment project area for the affordable housing to be provided by the Project and its Phase II benefits the Agency’s redevelopment project areas.

The RDA Board/City Council is giving themselves until next week to figure all of this stuff out. This includes:

  • $180 million in annual tax increment revenue, which could go away in a few months
  • $54 million from additional sources for the next two fiscal years
  • $200 million in land assets, not including the five properties being sold to cover the remaining Diridon ballpark site acquisition
  • $58 million in cash available at the moment
  • $58 million in planned capital expenditures
  • $200 million in annual debt service
  • $53 million in additional payments and operating costs for this year and the next two fiscal years

I’ll be at the meeting, which is scheduled for 3:30 4 PM at City Hall Council Chambers. It should be messy. I’ll have the audio recorder handy.

Also from Woolfork’s article (via the Argus’ Matthew Artz): Fremont approved $140 million in redevelopment bonds, though with so many cities looking to raise money and the TIF sources being threatened, there’s a legitimate question as to who will buy them with all of the uncertainty.

01.14.11
by

News for 1/14/11

I ducked into a Starbucks in downtown San Jose on Thursday afternoon to finish the latest CBA Talk entry. While I was proofreading it (it happens every so often), a gentleman at the next table over caught a glance at my screen and asked me what I was blogging about. I explained to him what this site was and how long I’d been at it. He then introduced himself as Bill Bradley – not that Bill Bradley – the Bill Bradley who formerly labored as the sports editor for the Sacramento Bee. He just launched a sports news site, 27×7.com, only 10 days ago and he’s already quite prolific. Bradley was in town working the Sharks game, and while he’s based out of the Sacramento area, he has expansion plans in the works (the “27” stands for 27 markets). After he headed out to HP Pavilion, it got me thinking about the incredible amount of downsizing in the news industry. Whether it’s columnists getting cut and going cut-rate to cable networks, or entire content providers like AOL Fanhouse going practically belly-up, it’s a rough time to be in the sports news game. Good luck to Bill and all of the others out there, hopefully your hustling will be kept to a minimum. On to the news.

  • Added 11:13 AM – The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports that San Jose is racing against the clock, with a deadline to complete its work (sans vote) coming as early as March.

    The ballpark plan in particular could become more difficult if Brown shuts down redevelopment. Last week, San Jose’s agency announced it was selling five parcels of land and using the proceeds to buy other properties within the ballpark site near the main rail station.

    City officials said they’re pushing ahead with the plan to assure Major League Baseball they can complete the site regardless of state politics. Redevelopment chief Harry Mavrogenes said the sale of the agency’s parcels should be done by June 30.

    State finance officials, however, said Tuesday that if the Legislature were to vote as early as March to disband the agencies, it could issue an order to halt all agency contracts immediately and not wait until the next fiscal year begins July 1.

    Even if Mavrogenes beats the state’s deadline — and baseball officials agree that the Oakland A’s should be allowed to move south — voters would have to give permission for the city to use the downtown land for a ballpark. It’s an open question whether they’d be as inclined to bless a park if there were fewer limitations on how proceeds from agency land sales could be used.

    Mayor Chuck Reed said the council will fight Brown’s proposal, which state finance officials say will return at least $1.9 billion annually to schools, cities, counties and special districts around the state beginning in 2013.

    This paints a worst case scenario, but it shows how serious the redevelopment collapse is, and how its implications are far-reaching. Brown talked about turning off the tap for projects that weren’t already under contract. San Jose is definitely not there yet. Already, LA has allocated $883 million of its own RDA funds to projects in anticipation of a raid and shutdown. LA has also agreed to convert the current RDA into a city-run non-profit entity after the agency is officially disbanded (there is an allowance for a successor, though what form it would take is unclear). I suspect that Wolff has communicated the gravity of this situation to Selig. Will it matter to Selig and the owners?

  • There are plenty of reasons to dislike Ignacio De La Fuente, such as his being a career machine politician. His DUI arrest on Christmas Day was not the result of a smart decision. That was followed by a lot of bile, people hoping IDLF would lose his job, people wishing the worst on him – mostly because he dared vote against the Oakland City Council’s $750k expenditure for the Victory Court EIR. Well, now he won’t be charged because of a “lack of evidence.” Officially, IDLF didn’t comment on the matter, but I imagine on the inside he was going, “How ya like me now, haterz!”
  • Speaking of the Oakland City Council, Larry Reid was elected Council President. You may not remember that Reid proudly proclaimed that he’d stake his career on the Coliseum North plan. Thankfully for him, when that plan fizzled out Reid’s career was not irreparably damaged. If there’s a person on the City Council who can be described as the most gung-ho about Oakland’s pro sports franchises, it’s Reid. Having Reid lead the charge won’t make up for a loss in redevelopment funds. Can Reid deliver in other ways? We may find out in due course.
  • Lew Wolff took time to shoot down rumors – made up out of whole cloth by Buster Olney – that he might be interested in buying the Dodgers from the legally challenged McCourts. The most interesting exchange regarding this non-news came from the Boston Globe:

    “Lew was in touch with me as soon as he became aware of the rumor that started to circulate a few days ago to make sure that I knew there was nothing to it,” McCourt wrote in a text.

    McCourt saw Wolff at the owners’ meetings in Phoenix and they discussed it again.

    “I have no idea where this one originated,” said Wolff from his cell phone at the owners’ meetings. “It’s completely untrue. We’re right in the middle of trying to get the go-ahead from Commissioner Selig about moving our franchise to San Jose. That’s all I’m thinking about. The Dodgers have an owner.”

    But we like our conspiracy theories, Lew! /s

  • Union Pacific bought 160 acres of land at the north and south ends of NUMMI. Hope all the NIMBYs there like the prospect of a railyard in their backyard. Because if it’s an intermodal hub like in West Oakland, the potential health issues could create a volcano of outrage the size of which will make the ballpark hubbub look like a neighborhood bridge game. Note: South Fremont is home to large warehouse/light industrial area, which makes it prime for such an operation.
  • The not final A’s promotional schedule is out. It includes bobblehead days for Rickey (4/30), MC Hammer (7/17) and Ray Fosse (8/13). Remember when the A’s also did collectable figurines for a spell? Did anyone like those?
  • I expect to renew my Fielders Choice season ticket plan, though I will be moving to the Value Deck.

The rest of the CBA Talk series will be posted throughout the weekend.

01.10.11
by

Brown’s Redevelopment Changes in Budget Proposal Text

If you have the time and the inkling, Governor Brown’s budget summary proposal is worth perusing (PDF here). I’ve taken the relevant portions related to redevelopment and pasted them here.

From the section titled Realignment, which describes how state and local services would be realigned to shift more of the burden/responsibility to the local level (p. 28):

Local Economic Development Change

As part of the determination of which level of government is best equipped to provide what service, it became clear that the state’s investment in local economic development and redevelopment agencies is less critical than other activities. (Please refer to the Tax Relief and Local Government Chapter for more information.)

The proposal outlines a new option for funding economic development at the local level by calling for a constitutional amendment to provide for 55‑percent voter approval for limited tax increases and bonding against local revenues for development projects similar to those currently funded through redevelopment and for infrastructure.

The Budget proposes legislation to phase out existing redevelopment agencies beginning in 2011‑12. Existing agencies will be required to cease creation of new obligations and successor agencies will be required to retire RDA debts in accordance with existing payment schedules. No existing obligations will be impaired.

In the 2011‑12 fiscal year, the freed‑up funds will be used for General Fund budget relief. In subsequent years, these funds will be allocated according to the existing property tax allocation, except for enterprise special districts, and will be available for cities, counties, and special districts to use for their high‑priority core functions. By 2012‑13, the Department of Finance estimates these local entities will receive close to $900 million in new resources to use for their priorities (with a similar amount going to education).

From the Tax Relief and Local Government section (p. 171-172):

The Budget proposes a new approach to fund economic development activities at the local level and phases out the current funding mechanism for redevelopment agencies. This proposal will return billions in property tax revenues to schools, cities, and counties. These funds will help sustain core functions including law enforcement, fire protection, and education. Below is a summary of the proposal:
  • Change redevelopment funding: Provide improved options to fund local economic development with voter approval. The Budget proposes a new financing mechanism for economic development. Specifically, the Budget proposes that the Constitution be amended to provide for 55‑percent voter approval for limited tax increases and bonding against local revenues for development projects such as are currently done by RDAs. Voters in each affected jurisdiction must approve use of their tax revenues for these purposes.
  • Shift existing redevelopment taxes to core local services. The Budget prohibits existing agencies from creating new contracts or obligations effective upon enactment of urgency legislation. By July 1, existing agencies would be disestablished and successor local agencies would be required to use the property tax that RDAs would otherwise have received to retire RDA debts and contractual obligations in accordance with existing payment schedules. This is estimated to cost $2.2 billion in 2011‑12. Finance estimates $3 billion will remain after these debt service and contractual payments. From this remaining amount, one‑time payments estimated at $1.1 billion will be provided equal to the pass‑through payments that otherwise would be received. Of the remaining $1.9 billion the Governor’s Budget directs $1.7 billion on a one‑time basis to offset state General Fund costs for Medi‑Cal ($840 million) and trial courts ($860 million). The final $210 million will be distributed on a one‑time basis to cities, counties, and special districts proportionate to their current share of the countywide property tax.
  • Provide revenues for core local services. Beginning in 2012‑13, the amounts remaining after payment of pre‑existing RDA debts and contractual obligations will be distributed to cities, counties, non‑enterprise special districts, and K‑14 schools in amounts proportionate to their share of the base countywide property tax. The only exception is that roughly $50 million that would otherwise be distributed to enterprise special districts (mainly water and waste disposal districts) will instead be provided to counties. Enterprise special districts are mainly fee‑supported. In 2012‑13, this is expected to result in an increase in annual local revenues (over the amounts they would have received in pass‑throughs) of approximately $1.0 billion for schools, $290 million for counties, $490 million for cities, and $100 million for non‑enterprise special districts. Funds received by K‑14 schools would not count toward the Proposition 98 guarantee. These monies would augment existing funding, and could be used at the discretion of school and community college districts. The sums received by schools would be distributed to both school districts and community college districts throughout the county, primarily based on numbers of students.
  • Use housing balances for housing. Amounts in the RDA’s balances reserved for low‑moderate income housing would be shifted to local housing authorities for low and moderate income housing.
  • Funding for core local services increases as debts are paid off. After 2011‑12, the money available after payment of RDA debt would be distributed to schools, counties, cities, and non‑enterprise special districts for general uses. These distributions will generally reflect the distribution of property tax in each county under existing law. This will help counties to absorb costs and provide enhanced services associated with realigned programs, if they choose to use the money in that way. Successor entities would continue the process of retiring RDA debt, which is expected to take at least 20 years. As the RDA debt is retired, the monies formerly used for debt service payments will flow to local governments.

The key here is the timing. The Governor expects this to be wrapped up by July, when the next budget has to be approved, not 18 months from now. Surely, the RDAs aren’t going to take this lying down. They’ll sue, knowing that they have Prop 22 to provide some protection. They may be able to delay things 6, 9, 12 months. The harsh reality is that California can’t run deficits as per the state Constitution, and if the left will more fervently fight additional cuts to services and the right does the same regarding tax hikes, guess who gets caught in the middle? Redevelopment. That only leaves two things for the RDAs: Figure out how to spend those nest eggs now (San Jose has $200 million in land assets after the downtown sale), and freshen up those resumes.

Quick aside: If nothing’s sacred in government or the budget anymore, it might be a good time for a constitutional convention just to clean things up. It’s only been 60+ years since that last happened.

01.10.11
by

Brown to Redevelopment: Your days are numbered

Governor Brown just finished his press conference, where he explained his budget plans. Brown is pushing for $12.5 Billion in spending cuts, and he is asking the legislature (and the voters) to extend temporary income, sales, and car taxes that are set to expire this year. As for the redevelopment golden goose, Brown said that existing (already bonded) projects are safe. New projects, on the other hand, are in trouble. Brown wants to “phase out” redevelopment agencies and start taking back $1.7 Billion in tax increment annually. What it comes down to is this: If you don’t have your project started and well underway in the next 12-18 months, you are screwed. There continues to be some debate as to how the governor could eliminate RDA’s, with the agencies enshrined in Article 16 in the Constitution and recently passed Prop 22 acting as protection. The governor seems to be saying, “If we get rid of RDA’s, there are no more protections.” Yow. Okay, who would this impact? Let’s put together a list:

  • San Jose Diridon Ballpark – While the City is speeding up land acquisition, what about Autumn Parkway and other mitigations? Will the funds be in place for the rest of the project, or will it get kicked down the road?
  • Oakland Victory Court Ballpark – Oakland already had to deal with a tight schedule based on a 2015 Opening Day. Now, Oakland will have to get its bonds raised and land in place right around the time an EIR is certified, or even before certification. Expect for Oakland to push MLB harder to decide in its favor, even without anything significant in place.
  • 49ers Stadium in Santa Clara – The quasi-public stadium authority would have to get its loans and/or bonds in place in the next 18 months as well.
  • New Raiders Stadium at the Coliseum – A new stadium is practically a nonstarter given the funding questions. Expect the Raiders to look south sooner rather than later.
  • Downtown Los Angeles NFL Stadium – The now $1.5 Billion stadium (+$500 million in the last two weeks) would require $350 million in bonds, which won’t be available if RDA’s go away.
  • City of Industry NFL Stadium – Ed Roski’s plan involves his own land, but much of the stadium cost would be funded by tax increment on the land improvements, thanks to much of the city being one large redevelopment zone. Uncertainty regarding RDAs makes the prospects for building infrastructure for the stadium and ancillary development, murky at best.
  • Sacramento Kings Arena – As Kevin Johnson’s arena task force continues to talk things out, time is running out, especially for an arena at the long dormant Railyards.
  • San Francisco Arena – Land south of AT&T Park could serve as the site for a new arena. Controlled by the Port and with development rights given to the Giants, it’s likely that any dev plan there will require at least the same kind of public outlay that made the ballpark deal work. Proponents would have to find another source for that funding.
redev_cut

Slide captured from the governor’s briefing

The message is abundantly clear: If you want to get something built, get a move on. (BTW, take a look at the counter on the right today. Eerie.)

01.10.11
by

News for the week of 1/10/11

I had a pass for CES but couldn’t go at the last moment. While I’m lamenting that, here are some truly newsworthy items.

  • The Maloofs are not only having trouble keeping the Kings afloat, they’re having trouble keeping the Palms afloat, at least according to Bloomberg. Two private equity firms are looking to buy controlling stake in the celebrilicious casino, with the possibility that the Maloofs would continue to operate the Palms, albeit with a reduced stake. No wonder there’s no talk of the Maloofs putting up money for a Sacramento arena. The family sold a $100 million beer distribution business in New Mexico last year to bring in some cash. It’s interesting that although the Kings have been discussed as either a prime sale candidate or worse a contraction target, there are few indicators that the Maloofs are interested in cashing out the franchise. They must really love their basketball team.
  • If fans are truly interested in stripping away baseball’s antitrust exemption, they might want to take a page from a new Washington lobbying group called Playoff PAC. The group, started in 2009, has stated its goal to eliminate the controversial BCS system and replace it with a true college football playoff tournament. Playoff PAC’s weapon of choice is to try to push anyone who will listen into investigating possible tax violations by the organizations which control three of the four member bowls of the BCS. While Playoff PAC does not have a ton of cash, but its limited efforts may actually be bearing fruit.
  • The downtown LA football stadium plan is finding takers. Farmers Insurance may become the naming rights sponsor, to the tune of 30 years, $20 million a year.
  • A draft race course route for the 2013 America’s Cup is up, and it’s quite cool.
  • Governor Brown will release his budget plans later this morning, and I will be paying close attention (as should you).

Will we hear something about KTRB this week? I sure hope so.

01.08.11
by

San Jose selling $25 million of downtown property for ballpark

So, what was that we were saying about San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency being broke?

Well, it’s true. From an operational standpoint, they’re very close. From an asset standpoint, not really. RDA head Harry Mavrogenes authorized the sale of $25 million of property in the downtown core, or 11% of its land holdings. The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has the details.

Said Mayor Chuck Reed: “A lot of people have been wondering how we’re going to put together the transaction to do the land for a baseball stadium. I think this is an answer. And it’s a message for Major League Baseball — just in case they had any questions.”

In an interview with the Mercury News, Mavrogenes acknowledged that the governor’s proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies could throw a wrench in the city’s plan to acquire the land for the ballpark.

He and the mayor said Friday that the agency’s land-sale plan has been in the works for at least a month. Reed added that the memo about the plan was prepared in advance of a discussion he has been trying to have with MLB Commissioner Bud Selig about “how we can finish the land deal.”

While the $25 million should cover the land, there’s still the cost of the Autumn Parkway project, which will probably exceed whatever is remaining (depending on how many corners are cut).

Interestingly, two of the properties are adjacent to Lew Wolff’s Fairmont Hotel. One is the parking garage underneath, while another is a small retail strip underneath the hotel’s annex, which has a McCormick & Schmick’s restaurant as one of its tenants. Two others are parking facilities. The final property is an undeveloped lot.

One way to think of how San Jose approaches redevelopment is like what Alan Mulally did with Ford several years ago. In what is now considered a highly prescient move, Mulally arranged for Ford to borrow $23.6 Billion to help aid the company in its restructuring efforts. GM and Chrysler chose to try to tough it out, and the economic collapse killed them both in the process. Instead of having to raise new bonds for every project while dealing with whatever the market conditions are at the time, San Jose has chosen to buy large properties early on with the idea of reselling them down the road – for profit or future project. While there is a legitimate argument as to whether or not this is how the RDA should operate, the fact is that San Jose has been in the position to make key moves when the time was right. Now they have assets they can sell as needed, and unlike Oakland, they don’t have to raise bonds or worry as much about the state impacting their timeline to raise bonds (also Oakland).

Does this mean San Jose is a done deal? Of course not. But it is yet another small yet consequential move that comes from a strategy borne of small yet consequential moves. Judging by the reactions of Wolff and Baseball San Jose head honcho Michael Mulcahy, they’re not small moves in the least.

12.24.10
by

IDLF DUI WTF Open Thread

I don’t regularly go onto The Google and type in the terms “councilman dui.” After Oakland District 5 Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente’s arrest for an apparent DUI violation earlier this morning, I was curious.

The final tally: 61,800 results, most of them from media outlets. Included were a Hercules councilman’s DUI last month and an incident in which a Westminster councilman wrapped his Mercedes around a telephone pole in 2009. After lightly going over some of these incidents, it seems that all of the guilty properly lawyered up and got probation to the tune of 2-3 years, which may have included ankle monitoring. Could IDLF receive a better or worse fate?

This blog tends to stay away from profiling politicians, but IDLF’s dissenting vote (conditional as it was) earlier in the week makes this issue somewhat relevant. Rumors have been swirling about IDLF potentially taking a job within incoming Governor Jerry Brown’s administration, and this would undoubtedly have a negative impact on his chances. As for keeping his job at Oakland City Hall, it’s probably safe. IDLF is halfway through his current term, his fifth. None of the articles I skimmed in my highly unscientific review indicated that any of the offenders had to vacate their positions, as long as they didn’t maim or kill anyone in the process. I don’t mean for this to sound glib, that’s just the way it seems to shake out. On a personal front, the man has been through worse.

If you’d like to steer the discussion away from IDLF, by all means! Be my guest. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and be smart if you’re gonna imbibe. Get a designated driver, use public transportation or take a taxi.

12.21.10
by

Oakland City Council approves EIR funding 6-2

Liveblog of the meeting (watching the stream):

7:15 PM – The first of eight speakers, Chris Dobbins, is up. The first three speakers are in favor of the resolution: Dobbins, Mike Davie, and Jorge Leon. emperor nobody is fifth with the the phrase “green stadium” as the magic words to making the ballpark work. Ethan Pintard suggests other alternative sites, is concerned with land availability. Bryan Grunwald suggests 980 Park, wants more transparency in the process.

7:28 PM – Council is speaking. Nancy Nadel asks about the Uptown garage, which will have $3.8 million in available funding, which will not be enough to finish the garage (it was also dependent on a now dormant housing development). Funny, she talks about the garage in terms of bringing people in from outside Oakland; isn’t that one of the purposes of a ballpark? Just asking.

7:33 PM – Rebecca Kaplan is up, is encouraged but wants alternatives (uses of the Victory Court site) just in case MLB doesn’t choose Oakland or a ballpark doesn’t pan out. Suggests the Coliseum as a possible site, though she takes care that mentioning the Coliseum is not opposition to Victory Court (sounds like a backpedal from the pre-election stance). Asks about pedestrian and rail crossing improvements, potential for a streetcar project.

7:36 PM – Ignacio de la Fuente thanks A’s fans. Is concerned about how MLB plays one city against another to squeeze out the best deal they can. Implores MLB to make a decision, says he can’t in good conscience support the resolution without a commitment from MLB. Brings up the DC-NoVA bidding war to land the Nats. Northern Virginia, like San Jose, was considered in the lead because it was well organized and had good political and economic support. DC got the team because of the deal put together by Robert Bobb and then-mayor Anthony Williams.

7:41 PM – Jane Brunner rebuts IDLF. Basically says that if we don’t approve this, we lose the team tomorrow (applause).

7:44 PM – Jean Quan expresses her support. Also looks at the site for other potential uses.

Motion passes 6-2. “Let’s Go Oakland” chant ensues.

Side note: A Bay City News article (via NBC Bay Area) mentions Fremont as Wolff’s fallback if MLB doesn’t allow a move to San Jose but only as a past (and currently not active) site possibility.

Greetings from the Southland again, where I am working on an ark to transport me, family, and pairs of animals away from the flash flooding here. At least it ends tomorrow. I think.

Rich Lieberman has the scoop that the A’s are dropping out of the KTRB bidding, due to the station’s “significant internal issues.” I think Big Vinny is cutting the A’s a bit too much slack here. Lew Wolff and Ken Pries are fully aware that individual stations don’t come up for sale very often, so to be able to jump in on one that already has your programming and really only needs some upkeep is a pretty rare opportunity, especially in the Bay Area. I’ve gotten on my soapbox two weeks ago, so I won’t belabor the point. Let’s just say I’ll be seriously disappointed if this comes to pass.

Speaking of opportunities, the Oakland City Council will take up the $750k EIR decision on tonight’s agenda (PDF). Be forewarned, however. The agenda has 47 items, and the meeting starts at 5:30 PM – which makes sense if you’re going to cram 47 items into a single session. The Victory Court item, 10-0260, is way down towards the bottom of the list and is a non-consent item, which means it will be heard after 6:30. A staff note for the item goes as follows:

The December 14, 2010 Community and Economic Development Committee approved recommendations and directed staff to spend conservatively – as slow as possible and decisions to expend funds should be leveraged against tangible certainties.

Staff further directed to add a RESOLVED that the contract is subject to termination at any time, with remaining funds left unspent, should the City’s work with the Major League Baseball stop progressing towards a satisfactory conclusion; 4 Ayes

Again, the item should pass handily with the added termination clause, though there will undoubtedly be a great deal of discussion before that vote is taken. The meeting will stream here.