Category Archives: San Jose

02.09.12
by

SJ Mayor Reed faces ethics complaint over pension reform

Tonight, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed is expected to give his annual State of the City address at the Civic Auditorium. He will deliver the speech in the shadow of an investigative report by NBC Bay Area, alleging that Reed and staff misled public employee union negotiators over the direness over the so-called future pension “crisis”. Apparently staff used fuzzy projections of $650 million by the 2015-16 budget year, which could be $250-300 million more than the actual cost of the program. It was those projections that Reed was using to push a pension reform ballot initiative this summer, one that the City Council approved to go on the ballot.

In light of the news report, an ethics complaint has been lodged against Reed, which could result in a full-blown investigation of whether or not Reed and the City fudged the numbers. The police officers union, which has been at odds with Reed, may be sharpening the knives for the mayor, who has been playing hardball with the unions over the last couple of years. Whatever happens, you can at least expect the death of the ballot initiative, which even if passed may not be constitutional. Although it is generally acknowledged by union reps that some kind of pension reform was needed, Reed’s draconian measures probably weren’t. Now it looks like those tactics may come back to bite him.

As far as the ballpark goes, it’s not related to this issue except for the possibility that referenda for both could be on a future ballot. Will Reed finally back down? It’s all up to him.

02.08.12
by

It’ll happen when it happens

Update 2/9 2:30 PM – KQED FM’s Nina Thorsen has posted a transcript of Wolff’s talk.

It seems that when Lew Wolff makes one of his frequent trips up from LA to the Bay Area, he tries to pack as many appointments as possible. I mentioned during the August interview that just after our discussion, he was going up to Oakland to chat with Mayor Jean Quan. When we met in 2009, it was just after he met with San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed. Today he discussed the A’s and Quakes at a San Jose Rotary lunch in downtown San Jose, a day after he appeared on Bloomberg TV. The better to save on jet fuel, I guess.

As usual, Wolff didn’t reveal in his talk with staunch ballpark proponent and Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone. Much of what he’s said we’ve written about, so I won’t both rehashing much of it. If you want a recap, read Merc scribe John Woolfork’s article. BANG A’s beat writer Joe Stiglich was there, as was KQED’s Nina Thorsen, mic in hand. The news of the day was this:

(Wolff) gave no indication why it wouldn’t go his way. But he also said nothing’s changed with regard to the Giants’ position that Santa Clara County is theirs alone. There’s been no discussion of a monetary figure for buying off the Giants’ territorial claims, though Wolff noted the Giants didn’t pay the A’s to acquire them.

Now I don’t expect MLB or Wolff to say anything about T-rights negotiations, however deep or frequent they’ve been. If the Giants hold fast to their no-negotiation stance, and the A’s believe that they shouldn’t have to pay for T-rights, then it’s difficult to see what Commissioner Bud Selig has to work with unless he decrees an amount or lets the matter go to arbitration.

Wolff also said that the team would be named the “San Jose Athletics”, which is no surprise. According to an AP report, there was Stomper doll on display with a San Jose Athletics uniform on. One unaffiliated company has gone as far as mocking up logos (non-MLB Properties infringing, of course) with San Jose and green and gold. The results look quite professional, I have to say.

Stiglich mentioned that Wolff would like to hear a decision in a couple of months. At some point we’re going to have to use Friedman Units or Kardashians in describing how long this is taking. Right now, it’s 6 FU’s. It’ll happen when it happens, I suppose. Wake me when there’s real news to report.

02.01.12
by

Nothing from nothing

First, a hat tip to two great legends who left the world much too soon.

If you haven’t done it already, read Nina Thorsen’s KQED interview with the Trib’s Oakland reporter Angela Woodall. Then read Ray Ratto quick opinion piece at CSN Bay Area.

Then sit back and consider what happened. If you’re struggling to come up with anything to describe it, you’re not alone. Because nothing actually happened. No forward progress, all spin, posturing, and gesticulation. Oakland fakes like it’s doing something, then shrugs its shoulders when nothing happens. MLB says nothing and does roughly the same. San Jose tries to do something and is blocked by MLB and the Giants.

I’m going to follow the Coliseum City project because it’s my duty. As long as the City of Oakland and Alameda County make plans for it to any degree, it’s worth covering. I don’t think it has legs. I’ll explain why:

  • Unless there’s a public financing component, a Coliseum ballpark will have a very difficult time paying for itself.
  • MLB wanted a downtown, waterfront site for an A’s ballpark. The Coliseum fits neither criteria.
  • The “City” part of Coliseum City will require its own large public investment. It is by design its own redevelopment district. Oakland will try to leverage existing and future TOD (transit oriented development) grants to help developers, but it’s a pittance compared to the overal cost (<5%). For instance, a 4-star, 800-room, full service hotel would cost $160 million to build, based on a $200k per room construction cost. That leaves out the other retail and commercial development costs. How much of that will the city/county have to subsidize to lure a developer?
  • The Raiders appear to be entirely site-agnostic in their search for a new stadium.
  • The chance that the NFL will award two $150 million G-4 loans to the Bay Area teams instead of spreading the love around to LA, Buffalo, and Minnesota is slim at best.
  • The Warriors are going to play Oakland and San Francisco off each other to get the best possible deal.

With so much uncertainty and so many variables, who is going to take the lead and make that heavy first investment? Private developers won’t do it unless the teams are committed first as the anchors. Teams won’t do it unless they can get something to help them pay for their new venues or give them revenue down the line. That’s the very least they should get considering the amount of construction upheaval that the project would create. The city and county can only act as facilitators. They don’t have the money to shoulder much of the development cost.

Ratto indicates that Oakland is actually playing for the Warriors and Raiders at this point, with the A’s practically out the door. That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying for years. Sadly, Oakland would be best served trying to make the best play possible for only one of its tenants. Otherwise, it might half-ass the efforts for both. Based on what we’ve seen coming out of Oakland so far, it’s quite good at half-assing. Or in the A’s case, no-assing.

01.30.12
by

Wolff: 2016 more realistic

In a session with the print/broadcast media yesterday (before the blogger session), Lew Wolff suggested that 2016 would be a more realistic date for Cisco Field to open due to the permitting process. To understand why this might be the case, it’s best to look at what’s happening with the Earthquakes stadium project, only two miles northwest of downtown San Jose.

Nearly a year ago the Quakes got a demolition permit for the Airport West/FMC plant site. A large industrial building had to be torn down and the ground had to be graded for the eventual construction. A soft groundbreaking ceremony was held, after which the demo took three months. Now it’s the end of a January 2012 and the actual building permit has yet to be granted, thanks in large part to objections by a neighborhood group near the stadium site. San Jose’s Planning Commission will have a hearing on February 22, at which point all grievances and objections should be aired in public. If you read this list of items to discuss regarding the project, you’ll see that it is on par with what has been (and would continue to be) discussed for Cisco Field.

If slipping to 2016 is real it brings up one critical issue for the franchise in that the “2014 situation” stretches out to 2014-15. Either a two year lease  (maybe with an option year just in case) would have to be negotiated with the Coliseum Authority or a two-year temporary home would have to be found, the latter seeming less likely. There may also be an inside baseball reason to slip a year: if MLB and Commissioner Bud Selig (thanks for waiting) has a compensation plan worked out that is too costly for the A’s and/or the other owners to swallow, allowing one less overlap year between the remaining mortgage on AT&T Park and the opening of Cisco Field may be more palatable. To me this is one of the more frustrating aspects of making such a deal. As I was pointing out to Lone Stranger yesterday, high eight figures or more in compensation is a big deal for anyone, including a billionaire who owns a franchise. I get that. Big picture, $75 million is only 1% of MLB’s annual revenue. Stretched out over three years, it becomes 0.3%. That amount shouldn’t cause extended bellyaching. It should be manageable.

01.23.12
by

News for 1/23/12

As usual, we’re in a quiet period leaving the January winter meetings and a month before pitchers and catchers report. At least we have FanFest coming up this weekend. Speaking of FanFest, if folks would like to meetup at FanFest, I think we can meet just inside whichever entrance they use, probably the Plaza Club entrance (lower) or East entrance (upper). I’d love to meet at a great restaurant or bar within walking distance, but… you know the problem there.

Now the news:

  • The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has a roundup of effect the shuttering of redevelopment will have on numerous South Bay redevelopment agencies, including San Jose’s. As has been written previously, SJRA has been winding down over the last year or so, making the shutdown less painful and abrupt than it is for other cities, many of whom are trying to extend the deadline from February 1 to April 15. While San Jose remains in an good position with regard to getting its planning and preparation together on a ballpark, its ability to acquire additional land for the ballpark is gone, leaving A’s ownership to take care of the rest.
  • Also in the Merc, columnist Scott Herhold makes the political calculation that if San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed continues to be aggressive if pushing for a pension reform referendum, he may find a lot of enemies of the ballpark in the form of public employee unions. Personally I know a few who are already opposed and are blaming the ballpark effort, so this is no joke. The simple fact of the matter is that with the unions providing givebacks and lower projected costs leading to a smaller budget deficit, the City is not in the kind of fiscal state of emergency that requires such drastic action on the Mayor’s part. Cooler heads should prevail.
  • St. Petersburg pols think a light rail system connecting their city with Tampa could help jumpstart attendance.
  • Apparently there is a Florida law which dictates that any stadia built with some amount of public funds requires those facilities to be used as homeless shelters when games aren’t being played. This includes huge football stadia, domes like Tropicana Field, even spring training ballparks. Now two legislators are trying to enforce that provision, which until now has remained dormant.
  • Chron’s Leah Garchik has an entertaining account of 49er fans being stuck on a bus in gridlock for three hours even though it was only going within city limits.
  • Added 12:07 PM – Lawrence Berkeley Lab has picked the site for its second campus: Richmond. The land was already owned by UC, so LBL needed to be bowled over to pick a different site in Oakland, Alameda, or Emeryville. In the end, that apparently didn’t happen. Sites proposed by Oakland included the Zhone property across 880 from the Coliseum, and the Oak-to-Ninth site east of Jack London Square.
  • Added 8:30 PM – The City of Oakland released a proposal that would layoff only 105 full-time employees as part of the redevelopment shutdown. That figure would be slightly more than half of the 200 layoffs that were expected.
  • Added 11:35 PM – The Santa Clara County Registrar confirmed that the 4,500 signatures gathered in a petition effort for a new referendum were good. This sets up a situation where the City Council, which has been firmly pro-stadium, will probably reject the petition effort, setting up a court battle. The interesting new twist to this saga is that the current Mayor is Jamie Matthews, a staunch opponent of the stadium plan. Matthews, who replaced Pat Mahan (proponent) last year, was merely a dissenting vote on the Council when the original vote passed in June 2010. Matthews seems emboldened enough now to turn the stadium effort into a real war. Correction 1/25 9:00 PM – Councilmember Jamie McLeod is a dissenter, not Jamie Matthews, who has been a longtime supporter of the stadium plan.

More if/as it comes.

01.13.12
by

How the environmental process hurts design

On the northwest corner of West Santa Clara Street and North San Pedro Street in downtown San Jose, Baseball San Jose put up a series of Cisco Field renderings, many of which you’ve already seen. The renderings are blown up to poster size, which allows people to study them for details that may not be readily apparent when viewing small versions in a browser.

Cisco Field as it hugs Autumn Parkway

The aerial view above may be my favorite simply because it fully displays the one distinctive architectural element of the ballpark, the “colonnade” along Autumn Parkway. Maybe the colonnade was designed to integrate the ballpark with the rest of the neighborhood. Thing is, there is no semblance of a neighborhood along this block of Autumn, which is populated by nondescript office buildings and an auto parts store-turned-marijuana dispensary. It’s possible that the colonnade was not borne of some desire to create a snaking, thin colonnade structure. It may have been the product of designing to reduce the visual impact of the stadium. Light will be able to go right through the structure from inside the stadium to the street (and vice-versa), which should in theory make the structure less imposing from the outside. That, coupled with the lower profile of a smaller, double-deck seating bowl, makes Cisco Field the least imposing ballpark since Fenway Park.

As I studied the renderings for the umpteenth time, I couldn’t help but wonder if the CEQA process, which governs all environmental review in the state, artificially constrained the design. When 360 architecture was commissioned to design the ballpark by A’s ownership, they were already dealing with a number of major constraints:

  • An irregularly shaped lot, which could limit the ballpark’s size and field dimensions
  • FAA restrictions on building height
  • Uniform code and standards on setbacks (for sidewalks and such)
  • Budget limitations
  • A desire by civic leaders for a large entry plaza, preferably in the outfield

That’s a lot to design around and come up with something cohesive, which to 360’s credit they’ve done an amazing job conceiving. I still wonder if something more distinctive is possible. In my interview with Lew Wolff, he intimated that the design, which is largely coming from John Fisher, could be moreso. My untrained eye and lack of imagination can’t see where the change can happen other than some façade treatments and cladding, which has given many of the HOK/Populous brick ballparks their faux monolithic look. I think 360 and the A’s can do better.

A place like San Jose, with its many short buildings dating from the 50’s forward, is architecturally drab. Sink Combs Dethlefs was only partly successful in evoking trains via HP Pavilion’s steel siding. The way light shimmers off the panels is beautiful at night and in twilight, during the day it looks a uniformly dull gray. In downtown there are very few truly interesting buildings, except for some built largely with public money such as the Rep, Tech Museum, and Children’s Discovery Museum. Even the latter two were tamed after recently deceased Mexican architect Ricardo Legorreta ran into a brick wall regarding the lively color palette he wanted to use for those buildings. As hearing after hearing, committee after committee waters down vision into a muddled mess, what citizens are left with is something more utilitarian in feel than imaginative. That’s a shame because it only furthers the perception that San Jose is a sleepy, uninspiring place.

If you’re looking for something more imposing at Cisco Field, a brick façade covers the walls behind the seating bowl. It matches well with the long Plant 51 building on the other side of the railroad tracks. Plant 51 was formerly a Del Monte cannery which has been repurposed into lofts and condos.

Pre-existing Plant 51 brick exterior with additional levels in a recessed, modern treatment. Caltrain is on the other side of the wall to the left.

You might think that in the above picture, the upper two levels were photoshopped onto the lower levels. It’s every bit real, and done to reduce the impact of the modern additions compared to the historic original building. The whole lacks unity and despite the intent, does little to preserve the integrity of the building. For me, it actually makes the building weaker.

Panoramic view towards downtown from a townhouse in Cahill Park. Cisco Field's brick façade would fill right half.

With redevelopment dead and its powers significantly curtailed, there are now fewer chances to create bold architecture other than in the private sector. I’m not asking for a Bird’s Nest here, the proportions and size of the stadium won’t allow for that. There is room for something bold and beautiful at Diridon. Aspirational should be achievable. If bold is good enough for the Fishers’ SFMOMA expansion, it’s good enough for Cisco Field.

01.12.12
by

Now we’re getting somewhere. Maybe.

So the news today started off with this:

 

All of that – and Lew Wolff’s reaction to Selig’s statements – is in today’s Mark Purdy article. There’s also USA Today baseball writer Bob Nightengale’s reply to Mike Davie’s inquiry:

Sounds like things are moving along. As for an actual resolution? Who knows? Bud Selig’s extension was approved 29-1, the dissenting vote coming from outgoing Padres owner John Moores. Jeff Moorad’s takeover bid has not yet been approved. Why? My guess is money. Say, isn’t Bob Piccinini in that group? He should be able to pump it up lickety split.

01.11.12
by

Mesa deal closer, San Jose deal not

Update 11:00 PM – Mark Purdy has a recap of today’s “events”.

MLB.com’s Barry M. Bloom reports that while Commissioner Bud Selig’s three-man panel made a presentation to the Executive Council today, there was nothing new to report on the Oakland/San Jose situation. The panel has presented information at different intervals, so this is no surprise. However, remember that everything comes from the top down: panel presents to Executive Committee, then the issue (probably) goes to the Relocation Committee, then to all of the owners for a vote (if it gets that far).

Spring training homes have no expressed territorial rights, so Lew Wolff’s efforts to put together a deal with Mesa at HoHokam Stadium continue unabated. According to Bloom, improvements to Hohokam would cost $10-15 million, with the city footing 60% of the bill and the A’s 40%. I look forward to seeing the plans, and will dissect them as you’d expect me to when the time comes.

01.10.12
by

News for 1/10/12

Didn’t expect to have so much news this week, and it’s only Tuesday. Here we go.

  • MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is expected to accept a two-year extension to his current term, which expires after the 2012 season. If Selig looks at the A’s as unfinished business, then it’s good he’s staying on instead of throwing the A’s over the fence for the next commissioner.
  • U.S. Department of Transportation officials were expected today to recommend $900 million in federal matching funds for the BART-to-Silicon Valley Phase I extension, which would terminate at the San Jose Flea Market. The decision would then move to Congress to approve, which was characterized by Gary Richards as a “formality”.
  • During the Raiders press conference introducing new GM Reggie McKenzie, team owner Mark Davis fielded a few questions about the stadium situation. He maintained a similar stance to his father about stadium prospects: “We’re going to try to get something done here (in Oakland) but if we can’t we have to get something done somewhere.” Oakland, Santa Clara, and LA are under consideration, without Davis committing to any specific site. The hiring of McKenzie will allow Davis to focus on the stadium search. One thing I took away from the presser: Mark Davis is committed to owning the team in the long run and considers it his family.
  • Oracle is opening a new office in downtown San Jose, in the same building as accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The office could have 265-440 employees. Oracle owns the building as part of its acquisition of BEA Systems.
  • SF Planning Commissioner Mike Antonini has been working with architecture firm HKS (Rangers Ballpark, Miller Park) and a financial services firm who could provide up to $600 million for the forlorn 49ers Hunters Point stadium project. Antonini is trying to raise $1 million from private sources to complete a study.
  • Oakland’s City Council is discussing (right now!) how to deal with the end of redevelopment. There is talk about a successor agency, which would be very limited in scope (affordable housing mostly). Oakland North has an excellent infographic explaining where the redevelopment budget goes. Oakland appears to have two choices: A) allow the successor agency to be created but not with enough money to properly operate, or B) let it expire completely and lose all control or powers normally attributed to redevelopment agencies. They have until Friday to make their decision.

More as it comes. Owners meetings start tomorrow, with the A’s not on the agenda. The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has an overview of the current situation.

01.07.12
by

Herhold tracks down history of SJ stadium vote

Whether or not I agree with their work, Scott Herhold’s piece in today’s Merc is why I’m glad there are still veteran reporters and columnists at the Bay Area papers. Herhold takes the wayback machine to 1991, when another Merc employee, Susan Strain, led the charge for a referendum on any stadium or arena project of 5,000 seats or greater.

Strain, now in New Orleans, was then living in Hyde Park, a quiet northside neighborhood framed by the old City Hall and County Government Center to the west, 880 and 101 to the north, Japantown to the south, and light industrial businesses to the east. She and other Hyde Park residents objected to the possibility of a homeless shelter opening in their neighborhood (IIRC an emergency women’s and children’s service center opened instead). Frustrated by the lack of response by City Hall, Strain really got Mayor Tom McEnery’s attention by organization a referendum push, a requirement that still exists to this day. Though it’s short, the article gets Strain’s and McEnery’s sides of the story, and is a good read.

In hindsight, the referendum requirement has probably prevented multiple sports opportunities from happening in San Jose, by scaring off teams or their parent leagues looking to build or locate teams there. The leagues’ M.O. for the last several decade or so has been to avoid a vote as much as possible (Target Field, Marlins Ballpark), even when it involves getting into legally suspect territory regarding financing.

The actions leading up to the San Jose Arena vote should also provide lessons to all parties in the ongoing stadium debates in Santa Clara and San Jose. Petitioners looking to reopen the 49ers stadium deal on financial grounds had to compete with local IBEW members looking to dissuade the public from signing any petitions. The San Jose ballpark is already going to vote so it’s unlikely to follow the same script, but you can bet that labor will be out in force to support the project if there is any sign of it being in jeopardy.

P.S. – Speaking of the Niners, they’ll be paying $12.5 million to Cedar Fair to get the Great America operator to drop its lawsuit. All that for four Sundays a year? Well played, Cedar Fair.