Category Archives: Politics

11.08.10
by

Larry Ellison vs. SF Giants

As Gavin Newsom begins his switch from a real job to a ceremonial one, he has a few matters left to which he has to attend. A key development issue, according to Matier and Ross, is San Francisco’s America’s Cup bid. As the winner of the last Cup, Larry Ellison gets to decide where the next one is held, and the only US bid comes from SF. A couple different proposals have come in, both of which would exchange the development rights for select piers for the cost to rebuild them, a cost that the City can’t take on at the moment. A similar kind of development project is already underway in the relocation of the Exploratorium, which will move east from the Palace of Fine Arts to Piers 15 and 17.

Initially, the project’s location was going to be Piers 48 and 50, which are adjacent to AT&T Park’s main parking lots. This shifted to Piers 30 and 32, just south of the Bay Bridge, where Red’s Java House is located. Ellison has nixed the 30-32 idea, perhaps because he doesn’t want to work right next to/underneath a bridge.

The Giants are objecting to 48-50 because construction work there could be disruptive to the Giants’ plans for those parking lots, to which they have development rights. It’s highly likely that some of that land may have to be used as a staging area for construction equipment and the like.

It gets more interesting when you consider that Oracle has been a charter sponsor of the Giants, with its name on the ballpark’s suite level since the beginning.

So who’s going to win out? Surely the Giants can delay their plans for a couple of years while the waterfront beautification project happens. After all, the two key uses that the Giants have identified, a 5,000-seat concert hall or a NBA arena, aren’t exactly going to materialize for quite some time. The region isn’t begging for a 5,000-seat venue. The Bill Graham Civic Auditorium (7,000) is old but serviceable, the Warfield and the Fillmore cover sub-3,000 crowds quite nicely. On the other side of the bay Another Planet has cornered the market on mid-sized venues, as it has the Greek Theatre in Berkeley (5-8,000) and Oakland’s Fox Theatre (2,800). In the South Bay, San Jose State’s Event Center holds exactly 5,000. As for an arena, well, that would be easier to deal with if Larry Ellison owned the Warriors, you think? Even then, the W’s lease runs at least through 2017, with the team owners being liable for the remaining debt service if they don’t sign extensions that would keep the team until 2027. If the Giants decide on a concert hall, their dreams of a SF arena will vanish. If they decide to wait for an NBA team, they’ll be waiting quite a long time.

This round should go to Larry Ellison. A project like this comes around very rarely. If the Cup is staged locally, Ellison will be a very busy guy, probably too busy to entertain Oakland partisans’ dreams for him to wrest the A’s from Wolff/Fisher and build a ballpark in Oakland. Seriously, can anyone out there point to a single quote that can back up Ellison’s interest in the A’s?

11.07.10
by

It’s like clockwork

It’s been about 3 months since the last time Dave Newhouse ripped Lew Wolff, so you had to figure it was time for Newhouse to drop another diatribe. It starts out by calling Wolff a liar, then the usual bid for canonization of Wally Haas, then a carpetbagger tag for good measure.

That union led to something beautiful — three straight World Series, 2.9 million attendees one season and a community bonding second to none in baseball.

Yes, the same community bonding that made attendance in the strike-shortened 1994 season (the last of the Haas era) 13th out of the 14 AL teams.

The tendency towards repetition is the major reason why I don’t feel the need to quote or respond to his rantings. This time, however, I figure it’s important to point out a few things.

But, MLB, remember this: Wolff’s initial lie was that the A’s must be near BART and the freeway whenever a new ballpark is built. Fremont fulfilled one-half of that requirement — BART was 2 miles away — and San Jose also fulfills one-half, but it doesn’t have BART.

Does Newhouse not understand that demographics and requirements change depending on the site? Of course BART is required in a place BART was previously used. If you spin out a radius of 20 miles from anywhere in Oakland, BART should be readily available. That can’t happen in San Jose, at least for several years. But in San Jose, people are used to getting to and from places without BART. Will East Bay fans find a San Jose ballpark less accessible? Of course they will. Will they be replaced by South Bay fans? Yes, they will. Why? Because it’s Major League Baseball at a fancy new ballpark near them. Some of them will be A’s fans. Others will be casual, hopefully some of them can be converted.

Later on, Newhouse espouses the virtues of the Coliseum’s location and plugs other sites.

And that isn’t the only available ballpark space in Oakland. There are two spots in Jack London Square, though it would take two businesses, Peerless Coffee and East Bay Restaurant Supply, to shift a bit to make it happen.

This may be doable for one business, not both. But Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente assured me that the most aesthetically pleasing spot — the Oak to 9th Project by the Estuary — remains available. It’s closer to the freeway than BART, but that site is every bit as attractive as the AT&T Park locale.

I find it interesting that Newhouse suggests that getting both Peerless and EBRS to relocate isn’t feasible. So does that mean that Victory Court is by extension infeasible? First I’ve heard of that. Beyond that, once again he’s being fed the same old nonsense by IDLF and Signature about O29 being doable – even though O29 has not been in the discussion for nearly a decade. Only Newhouse ever brings up O29, despite the lack of infrastructure and other challenges that would make it much more difficult to accomplish than Victory Court, 980, or even the Coliseum. Doesn’t it seem strange that while various real estate developers push for Victory Court to boost their own peripheral developments, one of those major developments could easily be cast aside for a ballpark? I’ll tell you why: those development projects aren’t as good as advertised. It’s not their fault that they were hung out to dry after the real estate collapse. Plenty of very rich developers have been left in similar circumstances.

My gut feeling is that Wolff has no place to go but Oakland. The world champion San Francisco Giants have strengthened their South Bay “territorial rights” by investing more heavily in their San Jose minor league team and by planning to renovate its home field, Municipal Stadium.

Thing is, it takes a lot more than a gut feeling to get a ballpark built. Throughout all of Newhouse’s vitriolic columns, he has never discussed how an Oakland ballpark will get done. Never mentions that it’ll cost $460 million in construction cost alone. Doesn’t have an answer for dozens of corporate interests that will be needed to get it financed. Let’s not forget that the Giants caught hell for financing $170 million, and that was after naming rights and charter seat licenses cut the original cost roughly in half. How can it get done in Oakland, a place that has relatively few major corporations? A place where PSL’s are impossible to sell? A place where building at the Coliseum (and perhaps anywhere in Oakland) may require shouldering the remaining debt on Mount Davis? A place where the government wants to keep the Raiders and simply may not have the resources to keep both the Raiders and A’s in town?

Frankly, Dave, you’re doing Trib readers a major disservice by not being honest about these challenges. Hope and emotion don’t make a strategy or a business plan. There are hard numbers and realities to address. When you feel like having an adult conversation with your readers about keeping the A’s in Oakland, you’ll be helping a lot more than you’re doing now. Until then, you’re just filling column inches, throwing some red meat at people who want it, and wasting everyone else’s time.

11.05.10
by

Quan takes lead over Perata

While election analysts (and yours truly) didn’t give Jean Quan much of a shot against Don Perata when Perata emerged with a 11 point lead, the Ranked Choice Voting system may end up working in Quan’s favor when all is said and done.

Source: Alameda County Registrar

The whole count looks rather uneventful until you get to Rounds 9 and 10. In Round 9, Rebecca Kaplan is eliminated and her second place votes are transferred. Apparently Quan received three times as many higher-placed votes as Perata, which led to that same proportion of votes going straight to Quan. The last tabulation has Perata at 48.91% and Quan at 51.09%.

While RCV helps in terms of reining in election costs, it’s not a perfect system. There’s no weighting assigned to first, second, third and so on, making it possible for a candidate coming in a consistent second on most if not all ballots to win outright. That seems strange. Of course, if they were to weight votes they’d be getting into a terrible BCS-type controversy, and no one wants that for an election.

If this holds true, it’ll be a big boost for the Victory Court crowd. Then again, there’s action and then there’s just talk. Whatever the case, there should and will be a few laughs at Lew Wolff and John Fisher’s expense.

10.26.10
by

Strange bedfellows

After Dave Newhouse’s A’s/Warriors panel with Oakland mayoral candidates at the beginning of the month, it wasn’t clear if anything would come of their responses. According to East Bay Express scribe Robert Gammon, it appears that something happened, as Lew Wolff and John Fisher gave a combined $25,000 to Don Perata’s campaign two weeks ago, perhaps a reward for his “candor.” Just to refresh your memory, here’s what Perata said about keeping the A’s in Oakland:

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

Gammon also got some follow-up from candidate and current City Council member Rebecca Kaplan.

Perata appeared uninterested in talking about keeping the A’s in town, according to several attendees. “He was very evasive,” said Kaplan, who was at the meeting with Quan, Perata, and fellow mayoral candidate Joe Tuman. “He basically conveyed that keeping the A’s is not very important.”

So, is it simply a matter of A’s ownership supporting Perata after the position was made public? Or was there a sort of quid pro quo there? Of course, Wolff denies any sort of link between the donation and the stance. Was the donation made because they truly feel that Perata is the best candidate? R-i-i-i-i-i-g-h-t. Though it should be mentioned that many longtime Perata friends, those who’d support a JLS ballpark, also donated serious money to Perata’s campaign affiliated, police union-funded political group. FWIW, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed was reelected in June and virtually no one noticed.

The rather prolific (at least recently) White Elephant Parade looked up contributions by both teams, and found that the Giants donated nearly double the amount of the A’s during the same 2009-10 state legislative session.

For Wolff and Fisher, $25,000 is a trifle, especially compared to the land bill they’ll face as San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency checks the couch cushions for change needed to buy the rest of the Diridon ballpark site.

10.14.10
by

SJ Redevelopment low on funds, Wolff ready to step up

Despite assurances from SJRA officials last month that the agency would have enough funds to take care of the remaining land buys for the Diridon site, it now appears that they are running short. However, even if they do Lew Wolff may be ready to buy the rest of the land, or even the entire site if need be.

“There isn’t a redevelopment agency or city or federal or state government that isn’t in some form of disarray at this point,” Wolff said Thursday of the agency’s struggles.

While he and agency officials both said no details of a possible land purchase by Wolff had been discussed, the team owner pledged: “Whatever issues we run into, we will figure out how to get them done. We will not let anything stand in the way of getting the ballpark done.”

This sets up a number of land acquisition/swap possibilities:

  • It’s possible the A’s could buy the land and give it back to the city. That would set up a situation in which the A’s could pay a discounted lease on the land until the City reimbursed the team.
  • They could also try to buy the existing public parcels and the remaining ones, making the entire thing privately held. There would be a snag if the landowners were unwilling to sell, because a private interest can’t exercise eminent domain as a city can. If the A’s managed to pull this off, it would probably be the biggest political winner, since the perception of a handout by the city, such as it were, would vanish. $20+24 million for a guaranteed electoral victory in March? It’s worth a cost-benefit analysis at the very least.
  • The team could also buy the public parcels, giving SJRA enough cash to buy the remaining parcels and fund the Autumn Parkway project. The land could be given or sold to the agency, with the cash transaction part happening sometime in the distance.

As mayor Chuck Reed said, “There are half a dozen different ways to put together a deal.” The ones listed above are just off the top of my head.

Even with the low funds situation, City officials are putting on a brave face.

“We’re committed as a city to move forward with the stadium, because it’s the most promising economic development project we’ve seen in the last decade,” Councilman Sam Liccardo said.

“I don’t expect the redevelopment agency’s fiscal problems will prevent us from finding a creative solution.”

Offering to help a municipality is not a foreign concept to Wolff. He offered to pay for upgrades to Phoenix Muni, only to get a collective shrug from the city. The Quakes also paid for upgrades to Buck Shaw Stadium in order to make it a (not so) temporary MLS facility.

10.06.10
by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Thanks, Ed)

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

09.27.10
by

Larry Stone speaks, some won’t like it

KCBS Radio did one of their In Depth interviews with Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone (MP3 download). Stone has, of course, been a active, constant proponent of bringing MLB to the South Bay, and has used his easily won public office as a bully pulpit. Stone was asked about the history of now 24-year effort to get this done, plus fielded questions about whether his roles as assessor and developer are conflicts of interest. If you’re a South Bay partisan, you’re going to think what he’s saying is gospel. If you’re an Oakland partisan, your ears may bleed profusely. It’s over 27 minutes long and well worth the listen (thanks, I.C.).

Among the morsels from the interview:

  • Within the first two minutes, Stone makes the claim that the A’s can’t survive in Oakland.
  • Stone is (IIRC) the first public figure to say that the Giants are trying to drive the A’s out of the market. When challenged on this, his response is, “Anybody would try to do this.”
  • Apparently the Earthquakes are not considered a major pro sports team, at least according to Stone. He must’ve forgotten them.
  • He thinks the Giants could spend $2-3 million to defeat the spring ballot measure.
  • Stone dances around the idea that some of the owners might feel threatened by another team invading their respective territories.
  • SJRA has the money set aside for the last two parcels (AT&T and Aegis).
  • Stone claims that when he talked to Schott some time ago, Schott had 75% of the owners lined up for a vote for a move south.
  • Stone speculates that Selig gave the Giants a “10 year head start” for the SC Co. t-rights, in effect protecting the county for a decade.
  • Interviewer Jane McMillan characterizes the Diridon area as “suburban” in comparison to what would normally be considered urban areas for other ballparks. Where does urban end and suburban begin?
  • McMillan also asks if a deal is done, but unfortunately says that the ballpark will be shared with the Quakes (which it won’t), which got Stone’s response moving in the wrong direction.

It’s a good listen, though if you’re on the SJ bandwagon you’ve already heard many of the talking points.

BTW, on an unrelated note, the Rangers secured a 20 year, $3 billion extension to the current TV rights deal with Fox Sports Southwest. $150 million a year (Maury Brown thinks the numbers could be off). Guess they won’t have that big debt problem that could keep them from re-signing Cliff Lee and extending Josh Hamilton.

09.25.10
by

Cal Expo rejects Kings arena plan

What next?

After several months of review, Cal Expo’s board came back and formally rejected a land swap proposal that would’ve placed the future home of the Kings on top of the old railyards near downtown and private development at the old fairgrounds, while Expo itself would’ve moved to the site of ARCO Arena.

Cal Expo board members voted 7-2 against the idea, saying the Natomas site is too small and not visible enough from the freeway.

“It’s the wrong site. We’ve said that time and time again,” said Cal Expo General Manager Norb Bartosik.

The complicated land swap proposal is the latest in a series of unsuccessful efforts – dating back a dozen years – to finance a new arena.

While the Maloofs were demure when asked to comment on the news – as they have been since David Stern took the wheel – you can’t help but think that whatever frustration they’ve held has to be spilling over at this point. They’ve said all the right things about not wanting to move the team, but Der Kommissar has to be getting ready to break out the big guns now. After all, he had few qualms about ripping the Sonics from Seattle, and the Emerald City had a much longer hoops lineage (and a ring) than Sactown.

So here’s the poll question for the week:

Where will the Kings end up?

A. Sacramento (where they flounder or a miracle deal is made)
B. Las Vegas (where the Maloofs get their unspeakable wish fulfilled)
C. Seattle (bought by Steve Ballmer and/or Howard Schultz)
D. San Jose (bought by Larry Ellison)
E. Kansas City (where they came from and an empty arena awaits, owner unknown)

09.20.10
by

San Jose City Council approve resolutions to support A’s move

Update 9/21 7:40 PM – Resolutions (city and redev agency) passed unanimously. Mayor Reed says that he’ll be talking to MLB COO Bob DuPuy soon to get some direction, and that he’s cautiously optimistic that he’ll get a resolution soon.

Tomorrow night, the San Jose City Council will vote on another set of resolutions (city and redevelopment agency have slightly different versions) in support of a move south. From what I can tell, the only significant language change was the recognition of recent statement of support by SVLG and 75 of its constituent CEO’s.

I will not be attending the session, but I will be monitoring it remotely. Action on the resolution is slated to be early in the agenda. If you’re interested, here’s the newest language:

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
(A) REAFFIRMING THE NEGOTIATING PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; AND (B) SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE OAKLAND ATHLETICS OWNERSHIP TO MOVE THE TEAM TO SAN JOSÉ AND THE ASSISTANCE OF THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP AND OTHER LOCAL GROUPS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO BRING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TO SAN JOSE

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2009 and August 3, 2010, the City Council and Agency Board affirmed its interest in supporting the efforts of the Oakland Athletics’ ownership to move the team to the City of San Jose; and

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council and Agency Board established Negotiating Principles for the development of a stadium in the Downtown for a Major League Baseball team, which were subsequently amended by Council on August 3, 2010; and

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2010, through the efforts of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a letter from seventy five (75) of Silicon Valley’s leading CEOs was sent to Major League Baseball urging Commissioner Selig to approve the Athletics’ move to San Jose; and

WHEREAS, various local organizations, including the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, the San Jose Convention and Visitors Bureau, the San Jose Sports Authority and Baseball San Jose, have all expressed their support for the Athletics’ move to San Jose, and Lew Wolff, the Athletics’ owner, is also on record as indicating he would prefer San Jose as the new home of the Athletics; and

WHEREAS, the Council desires to reaffirm the following previously-approved Negotiating Principles that will guide the City’s efforts in bringing a Major League Baseball stadium to San Jose:

1. No new taxes are imposed to fund ballpark-related expenditures.

2. The City must determine that the ballpark development will generate a significant economic benefit to the City and have a positive impact on City General Fund revenues.

3. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse any costs associated with construction of the ballpark or construction of any on-site infrastructure or improvements needed for the ballpark.

4. No public funds of any kind are spent to finance or reimburse any ballpark operational or maintenance costs related to activities conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team that uses the ballpark either at the ballpark or in the streets surrounding the ballpark.

5. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse the cost of any traffic control, street cleanup, emergency or security services within the ballpark site or within the streets surrounding the ballpark that are related to activities at the ballpark conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team.

6. If the property is leased for a ballpark, the baseball team must be willing, at the end of the term of the lease, either to purchase the property at fair market value or to do one of the following things at the City’s option and at no cost to the City or the Redevelopment Agency:

a. Transfer ownership of the improvements to the City or Redevelopment Agency; or
b. Demolish the improvements and clear the site to make way for other development.

7. The entity that builds or operates the ballpark must be willing, if the City deems it appropriate, to make the ballpark available to the City during baseball’s offseason for up to 10 days per year for community-related events, at no rental charge to the City.

8. The name of the baseball team must include San Jose.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:
(a)  Reaffirms the negotiating principles previously established and amended by the City Council; and
(b)  Supports the efforts of the Oakland Athletics ownership to move the team to San José and the assistance of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and other local groups in their efforts to bring Major League Baseball to San Jose.

I don’t expect this to change unless MLB makes its own announcement, after which the resolution would be amended again. This is what we can expect until the spring election, if it occurs.

Some choice quotes from public speakers at the session tonight:

Michael Mulcahy: I’m not a San Francisco Giants fan, but I’m rooting for them to make the playoffs so that we can see how that transforms a city.

Former Mayor Susan Hammer: I’m getting a little impatient with the snail’s pace of Major League Baseball.

09.16.10
by

Giants play ballpark politics from coast to coast

In light of the San Francisco Giants’ efforts to tighten control over its San Jose affiliate, it’s interesting to look at how they interact with their other minor league partners. The picture that comes from that survey shows that the Giants don’t play by the same rules based on location, especially when one travels further out from the Giants’ local sphere of control.

The most stable affiliates are in Fresno (AAA) and San Jose (High-A). Fresno was for years a Cal League city. With MLB’s expansion into Phoenix in 1998, the Giants’ long time AAA team, the Phoenix Firebirds, had to be relocated to Tucson, but only briefly before settling in Fresno. Chukchansi Park has done well reasonably well at the gate, though the recession may have claimed a large number of walk-up and advance sales in 2010. In all likelihood, the Grizzlies will once again ask the City of Fresno for rent concessions, citing operating losses. The big club hasn’t yet gotten involved in this saga. Should it drag on for another year or two, expect them to start making suggestions.

In San Jose, the Giants have been in place for 22 years, easily the longest continuous tenure of any one team in San Jose’s history. During that time, the team has won more Cal League titles than the parent club has won NL Division crowns. Yet there’s always a sense that the SJ Giants are this almost forgotten club in a lonely part of a large city, playing in a quaint but decrepit facility. Honestly, how can you define a place that is forced to empty out thirty minutes after the last out to allow for the players and coaches to have some breathing room anything but quaint? Even though the SJ team has always been a lackluster attendance performer (less than 200,000 per season), its owners have been able to make a small amount of money, and the strategic advantage of having a satellite so close for marketing and baseball operations (rehab stints) has surely been worth it. Now, the big club is considering spending more money on capital improvements on venerable San Jose Municipal Stadium, which sounds great, except that it’s not their normal M.O.

Augusta, GA is known most for The Masters golf tournament, one of the PGA’s majors held every April. Since 2005, it’s also the home to the Giants’ other Class A affiliate, the Augusta GreenJackets, who play at 15 year old Lake Olmstead Stadium. Even though the ballpark is only 15 years old, at this point it’s considered a temporary facility. Owner Ripken Baseball (yes, that Ripken) owns the team, but they and the Giants are holding the threat of moving over the city as of now, with a recently signed extension set to run only through 2012. The big idea now is a downtown ballpark, which would – wait for it – boost the local economy. Naturally, some local folks are skeptical. While the Giants have thrown a whopping $50K at a new laundry facility and weight room for the stadium, additional improvements are wanted, including a boost from the scant 500 on-site parking spaces.

Up I-95 in Richmond, the Giants just had their AA franchise move from Norwich, CT to The Diamond, which was vacated by the Braves’ AAA affiliate when the team bolted for suburban Gwinnett County, GA in 2009. The Diamond is considered a temporary facility, and it’s a given that a new ballpark will be necessary for the city to keep the franchise, now known as the Richmond Flying Squirrels. Again, the Giants are playing a factor here, as it’s quite possible that the team could be moved again if something doesn’t happen on the ballpark front (Richmond is the southernmost city in the Eastern League, and unlike Augusta is not guaranteed a minor league team).

Why would the Giants hold the threat of moving over two cities yet act with altruism with San Jose, a city with worse attendance and less interest among its citizens in a minor league team than Richmond and Augusta? It’s becoming more obvious with each passing day that the big club intends to use the little club as a wedge against the A’s, whether it’s politically or economically. The cash to buy the controlling interest (an additional 30%) was probably less than $3 million, based on the going rates for Class A franchises. $3 million for an ongoing PR effort against a city that clearly wants something else, vs. $50,000 for a new laundry room and weight room. Makes a ton of sense.

Note: I had promised something else today, but it’ll have to wait until next week. See y’all on the other side of GABF.