Category Archives: San Jose

08.12.11
by

94 South Montgomery

When San Jose started on its quest to assemble land for a downtown ballpark, its plans were ambitious. Initially, the City’s project area included the ballpark site you see in the rendering above, plus the “triangle” on the other side of Park Avenue and the strip between Los Gatos Creek and Autumn Street. Dwindling funds forced San Jose Redevelopment Agency to scale back its acquisitions to the point of being roughly two-thirds the size of the original project area. One parcel was acquired early on, and despite the fact that it can’t be part of the ballpark, it could play a key role in planning for the future district anchored by Cisco Field and HP Pavilion.

The parcel in question is the former 94 South Montgomery Street, on the northeast corner of West San Fernando and South Montgomery. A small multi-family housing unit once stood there, before it was demolished when SJRA acquired it. At a mere 6,780 square feet, it’s not much good for anything other than a a retail building. Currently, the land is fenced off. There don’t appear to be any plans to pave it, as the Stephens Meat lot was paved over post-demolition.

As part of the ongoing redevelopment of the largely light industrial area, several things are likely to occur in the distant future:

  • Some landowners between West San Fernando and The Alameda/Santa Clara Street are likely to cash out when the time is right.
  • Others who see the ballpark as potentially beneficial to their operations may choose to stay. An example is Poor House Bistro, which is located behind the 94 S. Montgomery parcel in the picture above.
  • Streets will be dug up and repaved, with utilities headed underground.
  • If the A’s get to working with the City, the Sharks, and VTA/Caltrain/Amtrak on planning, it’s likely that they’ll figure out a way to remake the area as a very pedestrian-friendly staging area for pre and post-game festivities, and even a Yawkey Way-like in-game area for fans. For instance, if you’ve gone to downtown San Jose for Christmas in the Park, you’ll see how Park Avenue is repurposed for carnival rides and booths. I would expect that kind of set up to happen on West San Fernando every homestand, which would take care of having additional family-oriented attractions adjacent to the space-challenged ballpark. I’d rather have that than *cough* a Coke bottle.

What about the parcel? Within the new staging context, it would appear that the parcel is a key piece to the future of Diridon area. Chances are that it’ll attract significant attention from developers, whether it’s the Wolff family or other developers. It wouldn’t surprise me if a major restauranteur were interested. Personally, I’d like to have an A’s museum there on a new structure. If not that, then a public plaza that honors A’s history. Coupled with the small parking lot next door, there are numerous opportunities. It’s not anything that can make Wolff/Fisher serious money, but it can significantly increase the attractiveness of the district. Anything that brings in fans, visitors, tourists – it’s all good for San Jose.

08.11.11
by

Redevelopment agencies granted stay until January

CORRECTION: Apparently I misinterpreted the news wrong. From the LA Times:

The court issued an order delaying enforcement of most provisions of the new law until a ruling on the merits of the case, but said redevelopment agencies could not incur new debt, transfer assets, buy property or enter into new contracts in the meantime.

So that means that neither SJRA or ORA could make the land purchases. Ah, but San Jose created a new joint powers authority, SJDDA. Sounds like a truck-sized loophole.

It looks like the gambit being played by RDA lobbyists, San Jose and Union City has paid off, at least for a few months. The California Supreme Court ruled today that redevelopment agencies have been granted a stay, delaying their dismantling until as late as January 15, 2012, when the court is expected to make a final ruling on the constitutionality of Governor Brown’s plan (Chron/Merc).

That doesn’t mean that RDAs are dancing in the streets. Yesterday, Los Angeles committed to a $97 million payment to the state so that the agency could stay operational. In doing so, that means the top two RDAs (LA, San Diego) have chosen to pony up. That leaves Oakland, which hasn’t said much about its plans, and San Jose, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, looking to either continue activities as planned or negotiate a different payment schedule.

For San Jose, this probably means they can move forward with the final land acquisitions at Diridon, which were supposed to be wrapped up by the end of June. In Oakland, this probably means they can go ahead with the Coliseum/Raiders redevelopment plan, and if other expenditures were required for Victory Court (such as extra EIR work), those could get the green light too.

All right, cities. You’ve got up to five months to crank out some results. Get to it!

OT – On A’s Talk, Chris Townsend may have revealed that the Sharks may not be on The Game this upcoming season.

One more thing – Cisco rose 16% today on a better-than-expected earnings report.

08.10.11
by

No chance for a SJ vote until MLB decides

Saw this tweet come across the internets:

No surprise here. Ever since Mayor Chuck Reed’s failed bluff, the City has had this stance regarding the referendum. What this means is a potential June 2012 vote, now that the state legislature has pushed back the upcoming primary from its previous February date. In all likelihood, that’s the last possible date for a ballpark vote in order to afford enough prep time for a Winter 2012/2013 groundbreaking and an April 2015 Opening Day. November 2012 could also be a possibility, but only if every other step such as demolition were either completed or well underway.

Of course, there’s the remote possibility that no referendum will be required. If the A’s were to buy all of Diridon land and pay for the Autumn Parkway project, I suspect that the city attorney will rule that no referendum is necessary. If the A’s don’t pay for Autumn Parkway, chances are that a referendum will be needed – even though the project would impact more than just the ballpark. Call it a hunch.

Keep in mind that we still haven’t heard what the status is of the remaining land buys. By not acting on a referendum now, the City can wait up to a full year to do the remaining acquisitions, even if they require eminent domain.

08.05.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 5

Part 5 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

LW: How about redevelopment? Don’t you want to talk about that?

ML: I’m getting right to that. Actually let’s talk about T-rights for one more question. If there was a dollar value attached to the T-rights here, is that something you’d consider? Is there a threshold or limit for that?

What do you mean, pay for this (Santa Clara County)? We should be paid for what we or the Haas family gave up?

ML: Well, I suppose this is an academic thing.

We’ll leave that up to the commissioner.

ML: Okay. Fair enough. On to San Jose and redevelopment. There are two properties remaining that have to be acquired. We last heard that they were supposed to be wrapped in June but we haven’t heard anything from the City about that. I’m guessing that they haven’t done it because of all the shakeup with the budget and the ending of redevelopment. Now that they’ve filed a lawsuit there’s all sorts of stuff up in the air.

San Jose went and acquired half the property or more, which is good for us because they’re committed. I spent most of my adult life in redevelopment. We’re not looking for redevelopment to hand us a check or a bond issue or anything. That’s true in Oakland too. The value of the land that we think it is, if San Jose needed that money to be paid to be the last properties (we’ll do it). We thought at first that we’d end up leasing land. Owning the land would be better for us. Whether it’s redevelopment, the city, a special district, whatever the hell they come up with, it makes no difference to us because we’re not looking for anything different than we would be normally. So in a funny way it’s a little better for us.

ML: Really?

Well, look. If we’re fortunate enough that they announce that we can go you have to close your eyes and say, “What will that mean?” The whole community is gonna be excited about that. The thing that bothers me is that – even in this economy – we need a ballpark whether the economy is good or bad. Right?

ML: Yeah.

So why should we be holding up jobs and construction and so on over an argument that I think is –

ML: Petty?

Petty. As a percentage of what we’re doing, the cost of the land, I don’t know what it’s going to be, if you’re going to spend $400-450 million the land is not going to be a situation where it costs X percent and it’s too much so we’re not going to build a new ballpark.

I hate to see what’s happening to redevelopment, because I think it’s one of the few aspects of government that has a cost-benefit to it. I’m still surprised – and I like Governor Brown – I didn’t get why he did that. The answer is that I’m sorry about what’s happening to all of these cities in California. We have a real shovel-ready project if nobody interferes with it. It’s not a concern. Your blog talks about it all the time which I think it good but it really isn’t a problem for us. We have one problem, and that’s the decision. Is that clear?

ML: Yes, and it’s somewhat reassuring in light of what we’ve learned in the past 6-7 months.

I didn’t say it was good for all cities.

ML: I’m not going to lie. There are a lot of people on the blog who read and comment who look at this and say, “That’ll be one more thing that eventually eliminates Oakland or some other city because they won’t have the resources to make it happen.”

By the way, they’re right. Not San Jose though – they’ve spent the resources. Their EIR is done. We may have a lawsuit from some phony – you know all that stuff. Starting now, somewhere else? Forget it, it’s not gonna happen. Anywhere.

ML: Did you even conceive that something like this would enter the equation when you started?

No, not at all.

ML: Going back to the first question, so much has changed in six years. 

A lot has changed and sometimes things that look negative may be positive for certain people, and vice-versa.

ML: The last questions I have are more fun stuff. I was considering bringing a book that I bought last year when I visited Target Field.

The Target Field book?

ML: The big book, the commemorative book. 

I have it.

ML: It’s beautiful, covers the entire history of how they got to that point. Other sites that were considered. Politics, and then finally the actual construction. Have you been to Target Field and maybe the Marlins ballpark?

I have been to Target Field but not the Marlins ballpark.

ML: What do you take away from Target Field?

Are you talking about the history of it?

ML: No, just the ballpark.

I think it looks terrific. It’s actually built on a smaller site than we have. It’s cantilevered out over –

ML: Over streets and railroads.

I don’t think we can afford to build that structure in California privately. They’ve had some help there (in Minnesota). What we’re planning to do is this. When you air-condition space like special restaurants and things. Because of San Jose and the economy and so on. We’re gonna have all of the great concessions but we’re not gonna have a stadium club because we want the downtown to provide that. The less air-conditioned space you have the more you can put into the field. Target Field is great. Give it to me tomorrow and I’ll take it in a second.

But we will be the closest to the field of any ballpark ever built in baseball, at least in my lifetime. And it’ll be fun. We just want to have fun. We want the fan to walk in and have fun. We don’t need to have a monument or tribute like Yankee Stadium – it’s incredible there, the materials and everything. It’s a $1.5-2 billion or whatever it costs. What we want is for somebody to go and say, “Gee, that was really a fun experience. I felt like I was really close to the player.” Each of our places in the ballpark – and my son can go over this with you – are neighborhoods. So it might be better to be in LF standing up than it would be to be behind home plate.

The average (attendance related to) capacity last year based on our study: 51%. So everybody’s saying we’re making this thing too small. Number one – we’re in a two-team market even though the other team doesn’t agree. [laughs] Number two – we think less is more. We want players to look up and have the stands filled. As much as they shouldn’t care whether it’s one person or 50,000, they do care.

ML: They absolutely care.

And so does the manager and so does the staff and the ticketing group. We have 130 people we employ and deserve to have a proper operating environment.

ML: Okay. Going to the Cisco Field renderings that were released last year by Baseball San Jose. A bunch of us, because we’re stadium geeks, started to dissect the pictures to figure out what’s in there, what’s going on. We were able to divine a few things and maybe some of my guesses were wrong. The first thing that stuck out from a pure baseball standpoint – because that’s what we watch, the action on the field – in RF you have that big wall of something facing Autumn Street. The dimensions of the field –

I’m gonna defer to my son Keith. who lives up here in the Bay Area. I’m gonna have him call you or you can call him, either way. He can sit down and explain this to you. It can be a separate blog time. I like it, but I just don’t have the info.

ML: Is Keith dealing with most of this technical stuff now, nose to the grindstone?

He’s my son so I don’t want to overdo it. He’s a little less emotional than I am. Probably smarter, Harvard MBA and all that. He’s a real estate developer and a good athlete. Billy wants to see more of Keith but Keith’s nose to the grindstone, trying to keep everything going here. On both soccer and baseball plus he has other activities outside of that. You’d get a kick out of talking to him.

ML: I’d love to do that, whether that’s soon or after the decision is made.

The other thing is the architect, who used to be with HOK then left – if the two of them were here you’d get a kick out of talking to them. They’re great people. I’ll work on that.

ML: That’s the stuff that we (on the blog) really want to talk about. You mentioned Billy Beane just now. Do Billy and Keith have an ongoing dialogue over how the ballpark should be developed? 

What Billy wants is to do is be able to walk into an office where he doesn’t trip over boxes and stuff. The answer is that we have Steve Vucinich [Ed.: VOOSE! A’s equipment manager]. He has a continuing list of all things the things he’d like to see in the ballpark. He’s been keeping the list for so long that it’s been getting yellow, he teases me. We will use all of our people – we have already but not to the degree when we start actually determining storage space, down to the details. We have great resources for this. Better than just consultants.

ML: That reminds me of when what is now Chase Field was being planned, they left a lot of the conceptual stuff to Buck Showalter, a manager. 

A manager would like to have more space between the foul line and the stands. We want to have one inch. So we’ll have that kind of battle going.

ML: I like that kind of battle. It’s a good thing to sink your teeth into. One more question. During the Fremont unveiling, you referenced ancillary development items such as the baseball village and museum. What happened to the museum concept? 

We probably don’t have room for it there. My partners, the Fishers, they contributed a wing to an art museum in San Francisco. They talk about a museum all the time. They look at the art of baseball. Or maybe they’re talking about pure art. They’ve also been down here and have had a conversation with the local museum. [Ed. – As we are talking I look out the window at the San Jose Museum of Art, a short throw from where I sit.] They have a great art collection, it’s not necessarily sports-related or sports memorabilia. We haven’t thought about it, but we’re open to those kind of fun things. Right now we don’t know if we can incorporate too much of that into the ballpark because of the size. So it isn’t perfect. If John Fisher were here he’d be talking about bringing great contemporary art to a baseball park and I’d be talking about bringing somebody’s uniform.

ML: You know what? I went to Cowboys Stadium last year and there were several contemporary art installations throughout. And it’s really beautiful and striking. 

John will be a big influence on this facility.

ML: That’s great. One last thing. When you look at the renderings, I’ve had a few people tell me it looks like a modernized mirror image of Fenway Park. 

You know, I don’t see it that way but I’m not sure. It is small and compact. Again, I’d like to defer that to the meeting with Keith and so forth. I mean, if we had Fenway Park right now I’d be very happy. [laughs]

ML: [laughs] For years, Fenway had 33,000 seats and no one complained.

You gotta always remember we’re in a two-team market. While there’s plenty of baseball, there’s plenty of other attractions in California, in fact there are more attractions than in Boston for the consumer. We gotta be careful about that.

Is that helpful? I’m pleased you were willing to do this. Believe me.

ML: I’m pleased that you had time to sit down and discuss this.

I guess the point is that I keep getting beaten up, and if people feel that way fine. I feel there are areas where we’ve really been diligent that people don’t want to think about.

ML: This was really great. It’ll be really productive when it gets posted. 

[Ed. – I had originally meant to follow up the museum question with one about honoring A’s history but was thrown off by Lew Wolff’s response that I forgot it. We were also heading into a hard stop. I’ll be sure to broach that in the discussion with Keith Wolff.]

08.04.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 4

Part 4 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)

ML: Now lets move onto everyone’s favorite topic – tarps. They’ve been a bone of contention ever since they’ve been up there. What have you learned from having them up there, whether they were an experiment or another initiative, do they help? Hurt? Does it even matter?

Actually, I want to go to your site. The doubleheader the other day. It was interesting. Somebody caught me the other day at the soccer game, he said, “Oh, I went to the doubleheader, I’m a Giant fan but it was so much fun.” But in your own blog, there were a whole lot of comments saying, “Gee the (Coliseum crowd) looked great because the tarps were there.”

ML: A lot of people said that.

There you are, I win, they (the critics) lose. Move on.

ML: [laughs] And it wasn’t even a sellout. 27,000.

I know, but it would be better if the seats weren’t there. Look, we have $2 Wednesday and a $1 hot dog. You personally have a problem with that. There’s a limit of ten (hot dogs). [laughs]

ML: It’s true. [Ed.: Years ago I once ate six dollar dogs in one sitting. I am no Joey Chestnut.]

I want to see the person who eats that. All kidding aside. Everybody’s saying you have to open this or do that, make it cheaper and cheaper. We need revenue, yet nobody says, “Look how reasonable the A’s game is compared to the Giants.” Which is fine, they have a better environment to go to. You should pay more there.

ML: That actually gets me to something I’ve been thinking about for a while. All the discounts that are available. They’re great and they allow families to come in (more frequently), but sometimes I wonder if there are too many discounts, that it devalues the product.

It definitely does. If everything is product – I’m not saying gouge people – but everything is product. I sort of get a kick out of Groupon. It’s a big problem all sports and concerts, Stubhub and others. Somebody wrote an article in the LA Times where the people went to a Dodgers game for $2.95, they got three seats. It’s also in the hotel business – you’ve got all these sites like Expedia. I don’t know where it’s going but a lot of people go on StubHub. Sometimes they’ll buy seats for triple. Sometimes they’ll buy seats for a third. It’s a very good point. Baseball’s looking at it. The hotel is looking at it in a different way. Who owns the content and controls the price? We own the content. I’m not sure we control the price.

ML: The Tuesday free parking promotion that you’ve had for couple years. Monday’s attendance was 11,000. Tuesday’s was 12,000. 

In the house Monday was 5,500. Tuesday was 8,000. I don’t know if the parking was a factor.

ML: It doesn’t seem like it has a lot of traction.

One of the problems is that we don’t have (much to work with). I think our marketing group may be one of the best in baseball because they have such a challenge. It’s fun to be at the Coliseum, but I don’t know (beyond that). We try everything. The critics say, “Lew’s trying to discourage fans.” That’s really not true. If they want to believe that it’s fine.

Our revenues are around $140-150 million. Our payroll is $75 million. That’s about right. I could name another team or two teams whose payroll is around $40 million. We’d make a lot of money if we did that. I will not do that.

ML: The team you’re playing right now (Tampa Bay).

They run pretty well. I was thinking of a different team.

[Ed. – Wolff demurred on naming the team.]

Over a time period, because of where they were in the standings, all of a sudden they got some terrific young players through the minors. Billy has kept us competitive, and he doesn’t get as much credit as he should, but that leaves us in the middle of the draft. So where other teams get higher picks –

ML: Top ten pick.

That’s never been my goal. I’m convinced that we will have a new stadium in 4-5 years. I hope it’s here. I can’t keep asking Billy and his guys to (deal with being a low revenue, low payroll team).

ML: In the past two years regarding player development, it seems you have gone in a different direction of going after international players, whether it’s Michael Ynoa or Hisashi Iwakuma. Outside the draft. Is that some sort of new targeted strategy?

It’s a strategy but it’s not new. The big money teams. I don’t have the exact figure, but in the last few months the Rangers have spent some $20+ million in the Dominican Republic. [Ed. – Technically this was $23 million for three players, two from D.R. and one from Cuba.]

If the new CBA has draft pick slotting and an international draft it’ll be better for us. We can’t go after free agents and pay somebody six years [trails off]. Last year we thought we had the makings of a pretty good team. We sat down with – and I personally was involved with Billy and David and Scott Boras – and we sat down with Adrian Beltre. We went down to Orange County and met with him. At the end of the day we offered somewhere over $70 million for however many years, pretty much equal to what the Angels offered. Scott said, “No he’s gonna get $90 million.” And Adrian was wonderful. We left and thought, “That’s not what he’s getting.” And then Texas paid him.

We went after Lance Berkman, the (National) league leader in home runs. I didn’t do that. Billy literally flew to his home and talked to him. We offered him 2 years at $8 million (per year), I don’t remember the exact figure. St. Louis only offered him one year at that. I don’t like to blame on Oakland. For reasons of his own choosing, he decided to go to St. Louis. Those two players would’ve been very important to us. We went out and got other terrific players, free agents – DeJesus, Willingham, and so forth. It’s a little disappointing that the hitting (hasn’t panned out). We’re starting to look at our air conditioning (the marine layer). Why do they hit .280 (somewhere else) and then come here (and not hit)? We’re starting to hit now, hitting’s a little contagious.

So when fans say that we’re trying to discourage and we’re trying to make the product bad, they’re wrong. We’re doing the best we can. We send in a report every year about how we use revenue sharing. We don’t put it in our pocket. Our best approach is to build through the minor leagues, drafting, and (hopefully) the international draft.  That’s our best chance of competing.

ML: Do you think that slotting and the international draft will be part of the next CBA?

I don’t know. I hope so, I think it’s good for everybody.

ML: I sure hope so. It’s crazy that given all the reporting about big money payrolls being 2x, 3x, 4x the A’s, it’s sort of underreported how much development budgets make expenditures that much higher.

Well, we have no choice. So we have to use our money efficiently. So it isn’t a matter of lowering your payroll for a major league team. In fact you have to use that extra money in the minor leagues – on the draft and so on.

ML: Could the A’s to land a top tier free agent – say a slugger – next year or the year after that regardless of the ballpark situation? Would you take a shot at it?

We took a shot at Beltre. That was a six or five year deal. The answer is yes, but that isn’t where we’re going to get (that productivity). First of all, the probabilities of our being successful are limited. Boston, Texas, the Yankees – they can just offer another this or another that. We will not intentionally lose money because it’s not good for baseball. It’s not good for the team. We’ve tried everything. We got lucky once with Frank Thomas (in 2006).

The year we went to the playoffs, this is what scared me the most. My people told me, “Just you watch.” Going into 2007, after we got to the ALCS, all we needed was another this or that (player). We had less season ticket sales going into 2007 (than in 2006). How is that possible? It’s just a function of our market is shared. When all of these columnists report this and remember that, when we were playing in the Coliseum and the Giants were playing in Candlestick. That’s a lot different today than it was then. They’ve got a beautiful new ballpark. We don’t.

ML: That’s really what it comes down to, doesn’t it?

It’s not totally that. I think our management talent is as good as anybody’s. I tell you I’ve got owners all over the place who laughed I when I gave Billy and Mike (Crowley) long term contracts and shares of ownership. Now they’re saying how smart (the deals) are. I don’t know two other people, plus David (Forst) and Farhan (Zaidi), who could operate under the conditions that we have – which I’m not complaining about, they’re just what they are – any better than those guys.

ML: Yeah. I’m not sure what else you can do other than hoping a lot of high draft picks all of sudden drop in your lap. That’s not happening.

We’ll be okay. We’ve got the trade deadline coming up. We’re not looking to acquire anybody. We’re not going to give away people just to reduce salary. We want to get something for that. I don’t know how many teams are – so many teams have $100+ million payroll that even if they’re on the cusp of getting to the playoffs they may not be that interested. All of that accelerates from now until Sunday.

ML: If you get a really great offer that you can’t refuse…

We’ll look at it, but I like the way the team is playing now. Plus we’ll get draft choices if we don’t keep certain players. We’re not in a panic position.

ML: No fire sale.

No fire sale. The nice thing about us, and you have to give Billy a lot of credit, one of my favorite all time keepers, not just a player, a keeper, is Mark Ellis. We have a young guy in Jemile Weeks who we hope to be our future. The only thing that we did was – Billy did this, I didn’t even think about it – we wanted Mark to be in a position where he was playing all the time. [Ed. – Ellis to Colorado trade]

ML: Which he is now.

So that was sort of a below market deal, but it was good for him and we owed it to him.

ML: I think it had near universal praise for the way it was handled.

Selig told me never to fall in love with a player because they always move.

ML: Naw, we all loved Ellie.

That guy is so sweet and so decent. We’ve got quite a few but he’s special.

ML: It’s the great legacy of A’s second basemen from Rapid City, SD. Like this stadium business, the radio saga dragged on much longer than it should have? What did you learn from that experience?

Again, the Giants have a better situation (because of KNBR). We didn’t learn much. We learned that sometimes the people who administer bankruptcy, sometimes they get fees for that. Sometimes they don’t operate in the best interest of the very people they’re working for. The situation that came along in the middle of that (95.7 KBWF) was fine and we did it. It’s not perfect but it’s working out better than we thought. I was getting tired of listening to country music, and then the ballgame, and then a religious channel.

ML: Those were trying times. Let’s go back to territorial rights. What is the best way you think this should be resolved?

Good. I always say that if I had a magic wand, we should share the territory.

ML: Flat out.

Just like all the other two-team markets. Your article is right. Santa Clara County was nobody’s territory at one point. That’s good information, it’s true. I have seen the minutes of those meetings, and the Haases were complemented for being cooperative. The reason that happened was to build a ballpark in San Jose. I was even active in that as a businessman. I had no thoughts in ever being involved in baseball. For the Giants to say they have the territory but they didn’t mean to – I just think we should share the market like the other teams. Theoretically the Angels could move right next to the Dodgers if they want.

ML: They could but it’d be crazy.

The Mets could move next to Yankee Stadium. The White Sox could move across town. They’re not going to but it’s allowed. And we’re further from the other team than any other. [Ed. – Again, not including DC/BAL] The whole thing in an academic sense, I can’t imagine the debate.

ML: Do you think the owners understand this? Do you have to talk to them or lobby them about this?

I made up my mind not to lobby them. Over this long period of time they’ll tease me a little bit about it. In fact several have told me, “I’ll talk to Bud for you.” I say no. It’s being done the way it’s supposed to be and let’s just see what happens. Running around and lobbying, I just don’t do that. It’s just not worth it. First of all, everyone’s going to go along pretty much with the commissioner’s decision.

ML: What’s your confidence level right now that this will get done by the end of the year?

In your lifetime? I have a lot of confidence that it’ll be done this year, but I said that last year too.

ML: Right.

Who knew that baseball would explode in two or three other areas? I still have a high degree of confidence that we’ll get an answer one way or the other. That’s all I’m asking for. I mean, I want a yes for sharing. In lieu of that I’ll take a no.

ML: Do you have a hard stop or a deadline for getting this done?

Yes. We missed it by two years. [laughs]

ML: There you go.

The answer is no, not now I don’t. As I say, I’ll pass the baton to those who are working on it. We’re working on this everyday. We’re talking about sight lines and everything. We just haven’t pulled the trigger to spend because we want to know it’s there (first).

ML: Okay.

08.03.11
by

The Big Lew Wolff Interview, Part 3

[Ed. – Before I start again I have to mention that there are some blogs out there who are cutting and pasting huge chunks of this interview for further commentary. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that I haven’t received a single request to use this interview for any kind of reuse of large chunks of it. I mean, really, it’s not like I’ve spent a lot of time on this. It’s not like people care about professionalism or common courtesy anymore. How about a heads up? Maybe a link to the original interview? It’s the least you can do. The very least. We may not agree on much, but we can at least show courtesy and respect others’ work. That’s all.]

Part 3 of 5 (Part 1, Part 2)

ML: You’ve frequently said here and everywhere that it’s all about keeping the A’s in the Bay Area, in this market –

For our ownership.

ML: Right. Recently, Giants president Larry Baer has hinted that while he supports the A’s looking in their territory – Alameda and Contra Costa counties – but if they can’t they’re welcome to try somewhere else such as Sacramento. How do you respond to that “hint” by Baer and the Giants?

If tomorrow you had the only McDonald’s in San Francisco, and fourteen miles away there was another location in Oakland. And your SF McDonald’s is worth $10 million and the Oakland McDonald’s is worth $100,000. That was fine for you (SF). Now the Oakland location says they’re closing up and they’re moving outside of the territory. What happens to the only McDonald’s then? Larry and the Giants would benefit hugely, I guess, in their minds. They dominate the market now, they may want to dominate it totally. Their market value might jump a huge amount.

However, I don’t get it. I don’t get why they’re so adamant about this. It’s just a difference of opinion.

ML: Do you think the Giants have a motive for protecting their territorial rights other than what they’ve stated publicly? Which is – they just want to pay off the ballpark.

I’ll have to say that going back to – forget that it’s Oakland or San Jose – there are four two-team markets. [Ed.: Note exclusion of DC-Baltimore] Three already have the same boundaries. I think this one should too. I think we would have a great rivalry with them. Why shouldn’t we have a beautiful ballpark? In fact, one of the backers and instigators is my partner and his family, the Fishers. I think if you actually went to a lot of the passive investors in the Giants – these are people who want to support the Bay Area, not just one team. What is it gonna hurt? In fact I think it’s gonna be better for them too. Everybody has their own views.

ML: There’s been some talk from fans and media about challenging baseball’s antitrust exemption. Knowing what you know, being in what they call “The Lodge”, is there anything realistic about that?

Well, today we live in a litigious society. If you want to sue over this chair you’re sitting on you can sue the manufacturer because you’re not feeling well. We are not of that ilk. We are a partner. Maybe this is an odd view, but I believe that we’ve entered a partnership. This is what the commissioner chose. As I said before, we’re not even thinking about it (suing). It’s not right based on being part of a partnership. Therefore it’s not a lever for us, it might be for someone else. If the reverse is true, maybe a smart attorney running a baseball team might say, “We can do this, we can do that.” [Ed.: I chuckled] We’re not going to do it, that’s all there is to it. It’s just not right.

ML: This seems to be something very consistent that you’ve said, even going back a couple of years ago. The partnership idea that all of the owners are in one boat and they’re all supposed to be rowing in the same direction.

I know I’m a little naïve when it comes to that, in the world that we live it, but that’s how I’m gonna run it.

ML: Okay. When it comes to making a decision, is it really all up to the commissioner?

Yep. Well – that’s a good question – he would need a vote of the owners [Ed.: 3/4 of owners]. Since I’ve been there, there haven’t been a lot of votes. Maybe the Giants wouldn’t vote for it or a couple of teams. Again, it’s a collaborative thing. With all the work that’s gone into this, whatever the decision is, it’ll have a lot of backing. I think if he decides to let us move to San Jose that he’ll get a lot of votes. I don’t think the voting will be an issue. He even has the power to go beyond that if it’s for the good of baseball. I really don’t sit there and analyze this from a legal point of view. If the decision is “you can’t” or “you can” the support will be to follow the commissioner’s lead.

ML: And that’s really all you’re looking for. Yes or no.

Yeah.

ML: You mentioned the Dodgers and Mets offhand. Are they on the front burner and the A’s on the back burner, or does it not work like that?

You’d have to ask the commissioner. No, I don’t think we’re on the back burner. I really think the Mets and the Dodgers are two different situations. But they’re both important (teams), important markets, important to us. The Mets aren’t suing baseball. They’re just trying to survive – and maybe they made some errors with this Madoff thing – I don’t know that much about it. The Dodgers are attacking, they put their team in bankruptcy. If they follow the constitution of baseball that’s cause for taking over the team. I’ve got my own stuff I worry about every day. We need those markets to have ownerships that are committed and capable of not getting into these issues.

ML: Commissioner Selig, when asked about what’s happening with the A’s a couple of times this year has said, “We’re working on it,” in nice, vague terms. Are they really still working on it? Seriously.

[laughs] I think what he’s working on – and I don’t know – is unless Oakland knows something that I don’t know. I answer is I think he’s contemplative. Way beyond where I am. We talk several times a week, not on this issue but on others I’m involved in. I’m having a – I enjoy the commissioner. We’ve known each other a very long time, longer than I’ve known my wife – and we’ve been married 54 years. I think he’s got enough information to make a decision. He may be trying to figure out a good way that the Giants are happy and we’re happy. He tends to do that. And right now, what choice do I have? Last night we won a game. That’s more fun than worrying about this crap.

ML: I agree, I agree. Now let’s talk a little about the Coliseum. I’m sure you’re aware that attendance is up this year as opposed to last year, and over 2009 as well. 

When Russia went from communism to capitalism they had a huge jump in economics, but that’s from a very low base. [laughs] When I talk to the commish he’ll say to me, “You know, you’re up 4.5%.” The one thing he follows is attendance. Now I follow paid attendance, I’m not sure that he does.

ML: Fair enough.

Attendance is up (league-wide) according to my last conversation. They’re up a little bit in the American League.

ML: Yeah, I think it turned around after the weather. 

Now I don’t know if it means in the ballpark. I look at Dodger Stadium and it looks almost empty sometimes.

ML: I believe that it’s paid attendance and it’s somehow withstood the drop for the Mets and Dodgers. 

What happens is that some people are afraid to give up their tickets. I was hesitant to give up my Laker tickets. But then I look back and ask how many games did I go to since my kids all moved out of L.A. Do I really need these tickets? And then a year later I decide to do one more year. I worry about the impact of that.

ML: I see.

I just wish the Dodger thing was settled and we could move on.

ML: In the past you’ve mentioned the Coliseum’s defects and its chronic state of decay. Could a ballpark be built alongside or replace the existing Coliseum? For now let’s put aside the financing – well no, we can’t put it aside.

No, let’s put it aside for the moment. First I looked at the Coliseum, because there was nothing downtown. We’re talking about the physical stadium. This is where I read the older (sports) writers, they’re living in the past. A lot has changed for Oakland since then. The last year the Haases owned the team they had the highest payroll in baseball and drew 1.2 million. You might want to check that out.

ML: They were. [Ed. – 1.2 million in the strike-shortened 1994 season, 1.1 million in each of the following two seasons.]

[Ed. – At this point Lew’s son-in-law, Dean Rossi, comes by with his son, Arthur. It’s mostly a personal conversation so I’ll leave this out. Lew will drop Arthur off at the Coliseum to run around the clubhouse – every kid’s dream – before heading up to City Hall to meet with Mayor Quan. Note: Two partners in Rossi’s law firm help run Baseball San Jose.]

So where were we? Coliseum.

ML: So is it possible?

Let’s talk about it. Aside from the market being – Oakland used to have several major corporations, doesn’t have them any longer. The whole thing with the Raider thing, Mt. Davis, we had nothing to do with that. You can never get sight lines that satisfy two sports in one venue anymore. Even inside it’s not good to have hockey and basketball. You can do it but, you know.

There are so many physical issues. Right now if we wanted to move the fans closer, I don’t know what to do. The field is 22 feet below sea level so there’s no way to move forward without tearing down all the seats. You’d understand that better than most.

ML: Yeah.

The field is great until football. The field is great because we have a great groundskeeper, Clay Wood. As soon as the Raiders come in – it’s just not good.

About the site. You can make all the drawings you want on that site. This is what really bothered me. The Coliseum wasn’t even the #1 site in the HOK study. Even Fremont was in the study. The Coliseum had a little line about some kind of utility thing. I asked if there was a title report ordered for the Coliseum. In my world that’s one of the first things you do. Nobody knew, the city didn’t know, it was just a bunch of bureaucratic nothing. So we ordered the title report, which is just about this thick [fingers spread an inch apart]. There is an easement.

[Ed. – The Coliseum Authority recently bought the land in question as part of its new Raiders stadium effort. Oakland Councilman Larry Reid envisions an ancillary development project similar to L.A. Live in downtown Los Angeles, next to Staples Center. The Authority is also proposing $4 million in additional expenditures related to project study costs.]

ML: You mentioned this. It was the sewer interceptor.

It’s not an easement you can move. So any architect who wants to build over the freeway or whatever, needs to sit down and determine what easement does relative to placing a football stadium or arena. That kind of even minor detail, we could say, “oh we’ll do it” but never do it. None of that’s done. The average fan shouldn’t have to bother with that. But that site isn’t as simple as we thought.

One time I thought it would be a good idea to buy the triangle that heads out to Hegenberger (Malibu/HomeBase lots). I said, “Look, we don’t know if we’re gonna stay here, but we need that piece to do parking or mitigate, otherwise it’s chaos if you’re trying to develop that site.” All of a sudden another architect comes up with an idea for these multistory garages. Well, who’s gonna pay for those? And if you’re on the fifth floor of a garage for a baseball team, you might as well stay home. So it was just a hundred inhibitions.

Now, we recently had someone come up to me, a legitimate guy. I didn’t ask who it was as it came through someone else. He said, “Gee whiz, we think there’s a way to remain in Oakland and live with the Coliseum” and so on. Well, tell me what it is. “If you guys want to sell the team” and all that stuff. I’d like to know what you’re talking about before I would even contemplate that. Other owners haven’t been able to do anything in Oakland (build stadia) either. We’re not the only one. The Coliseum’s an over 40-year old facility. Dodger Stadium is too. Dodger Stadium, I believe, would take a minimum of $100 million to keep it going – and they keep it pretty well maintained. So you tell me what this would cost.

ML: I have no idea.

I don’t either. They (Coliseum Authority) don’t have any money. We’re constantly making repairs that are not our obligation.

ML: Really? Like what?

Leaks and things. The scoreboard. There are two of them because of football. I think they’re finally going to replace them, but if they don’t there are no more parts. If a light goes out we borrow it from another one. It’s aggravating. But they basically say they don’t have any money. They still have bonds to pay off. The place is old and this is not the time for cities to write a check for sports.

ML: Yet they’re going forward with a study for the Raiders.

All these studies. If I were an investigative reporter I’d like to know how much is spent. Supposedly that study is done. And that’s fine, they should, the Raiders are fine. Where are all these things? Who’s doing them? If it’s a six month study what happened to the first two months? We have heard nothing. And we’ve been more tolerant than the other two teams (as tenants). We’ve never affected our rights there. If we win (legally), what do we win if they don’t have any money? It was a baseball park once. I wasn’t around when any of that happened, but the amount put into that sure seems strange to me. That was before my time.

ML: The litigious part kind of speaks for itself at least for the other two teams.

Look, I’m just not litigious. I think our legal system is killing us, so much initiative. I’ve been in business almost 50 years. I’m a real estate developer. Most of my contemporaries are suing someone every three months. I’ve had two lawsuits my entire career. I think everything can be settled. But you can’t do it if someone’s not willing to cooperate.

07.19.11
by

Heads I win, tails you lose (redevelopment lawsuit)

I’ve been flipping through the 126-page court filing (warning: 12 MB PDF) for the redevelopment lawsuit, and to be completely honest, I don’t know how lawyers get through all of this stuff. Court filings aren’t page turners – well, unless you’re Frank McCourt. My enjoyment of the literature aside, there are some interesting things in the document.

As I mentioned Monday, the lawsuit is being filed by The League of California Cities, California Redevelopment Association, San Jose, and Union City. Several other cities have posted their declarations of support, including Brentwood and Oakland. Oakland’s declaration was made by Mayor Jean Quan. San Jose’s accompanying declaration was made by Mayor Chuck Reed’s Chief of Staff, Peter J. Furman. Both cities cite their inability to make the “ransom” payments required to continue operating their redevelopment agencies. Both mention how much redevelopment has helped their cities. Neither mentions a ballpark in any way, though that’s to be expected (ballparks are luxury items, which makes them not politically expedient). Furman argues that being forced to pay the state puts them at risk of breach of contract with Santa Clara County. Quan points out that making its payment to the state puts the police/fire retirement funding at risk. She does point out that Oakland could make a payment by making severe cutbacks to ORA, similar to what San Jose did. Although Furman doesn’t say it, San Jose could sell additional land (or have certain payments to SJRA made earlier, such as Lew Wolff’s price for Airport West).

On the other hand, Union City’s declaration was very specific in how it describes its one major redevelopment project, the TOD village east of the Union City BART station, as a potential victim.

What do the cities want?

  • A full hearing by the California Supreme Court to debate the twin laws’ constitutionality.
  • A stay to prevent major actions that could adversely affect redevelopment until the hearing above is held, preferably by August 15.

The argument by the petitioners is that if the laws – which are already in effect – are allowed to progress with the dismantling of RDAs, there may be nothing left to recover even if a lengthy lawsuit eventually reverses the law. Unfortunately for proponents of redevelopment, the court is not expected to hear the case until September. That puts the various agencies in a really tough spot since dissolution is supposed to start as early as October 1. Any city that decides to pay-to-play has to declare that they will by that date, which makes the dissolution “temporary” until 2012. The first payment is due in January 2012.

When the state budget talks were in its final hours, several legislators pushed hard for promises to accommodate cities so that the eventual payments wouldn’t be so crushing. That caused a several hour delay in getting the budget approved. It’s unclear as to the effectiveness of that tactic, but we will see if it bore fruit over the next few months. Some cities may be looking for a more manageable payment schedule or payment amounts. Others are ready to swallow their medicine right now so that they can continue to operate. The state’s stance that the laws will be upheld in court has not wavered. From a pure fiscal/basic services standpoint, you’d like to think that cities like San Jose and Oakland have backup plans to address their budget problems if redevelopment is killed. So far, they haven’t shared what those plans are. That’s not just scary from an A’s future standpoint. It’s much bigger than that.

07.18.11
by

News for 7/18/11: Poison pill edition

Update 4:45 PM – The lawsuit has been filed. Heading the suit are the expected lobbying groups, The League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association, plus the cities of San Jose and Union City. Oakland signed a declaration in support of the lawsuit.

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reports on the redevelopment lawsuits that are set to happen any day now but for whatever reason haven’t happened yet. Perhaps the reasoning for this is a poison pill inserted into the first bill (ABX1 26) that could prevent any cities who successfully sue the state over redevelopment from issuing additional debt. I have to admit that I didn’t notice the poison pill in my readings of the bills over the last month or so, despite the fact that the language is front and center.

(3) The bill would prohibit a redevelopment agency from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations if any legal challenge to invalidate a provision of this act is successful.

The poison pill may be the trump card forcing cities to pay-to-play for future redevelopment, since the cities have little chance of getting their payments back.

(Assembly Speaker Perez’s spokeman John) Vigna said if the agencies win a court challenge, the provision would force them back to the negotiating table and “continue working on something that satisfies the governor’s concerns, and their concerns.” But the negotiations would only involve those agencies that can make the upfront payment.

Wondering where the money for the last two parcels in San Jose is going? My guess is partly to the county for a prior settlement (which has a lien on some city properties), and partly to the state for the budget. It’s your move, Lew.

Funny that redevelopment wasn’t mentioned once in Dave Newhouse’s glowing interview with Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan. While I admire Kaplan’s gusto, her continued pushing of the Coliseum is almost inexplicable. It’s not what MLB wants, it conflicts with what the Raiders are trying to do there, and the aforementioned freeze on redevelopment makes it just as complicated to work out a deal there as the downtown sites (if not more complicated). It’s also disingenuous to start making bold claims about which city doesn’t have money when the fact is that no city has money, and neither Oakland nor San Jose have articulated how they’ll get out of the RDA pickle.

Other tidbits:

June radio ratings are out. 95.7 (KBWF) dropped from 0.6 to 0.5 in the San Francisco-Oakland market, and stayed steady at 0.8 in San Jose.

Frank McCourt’s hubris continues, as he refers to Selig as “the devil” with “an eye jaundiced towards irrational animosity” in today’s court filing. Read this Vanity Fair article chronicling the McCourt divorce and you might think his arguments are a bit rich.

Carmen Policy was profiled in Sunday’s Chronicle (no public link yet, subscribers only) continuing to lobby for a 49ers stadium at Hunters Point. Policy is on master developer Lennar’s payroll to advocate for the stadium, which ironically Lennar no longer has to support and would actually would save $100+ million if they abandoned the stadium part of the project. Policy, ever a SF/Wine Country guy, also takes a shot at Oakland in the process:

“If I were part of a group that somehow wound up owning the Raiders, I would be looking to expand my influence throughout the Bay Area as far as possible, and one sure way of doing that is playing outside of Oakland.”

Is Policy not aware of what the Raiders’ identity is? Baffling.

The NFL and NFLPA may finally be wrapping up their negotiations, with the possibility of a “global settlement” covering all outstanding bargaining items and external lawsuits, such as Brady vs. NFL. Then again, we’ve heard the two sides were close to finalizing a CBA for well over a month.

07.17.11
by

Notes from the true doubleheader

Saturday’s double-dip truly had an event feel. It’s hard for the A’s to wring value out of a game when tickets are so cheap and frequently discounted. There were no bobbleheads or fireworks today, which made the game itself the real attraction. When the preliminary schedule was released, there was no doubleheader and the series was a typical post-ASB four-gamer. Even though combined attendance for typical Thursday and Saturday games would have eclipsed the 27,379 posted today, today’s number was a better number. From the look of the crowd and the parking lot, 27,379 is more reflective of the actual attendance than the regular paid figure. That feeling of fullness multiplies the sense of energy within the crowd and the venue.

Despite the good vibes, the day was not without hiccups. I didn’t arrive until the bottom of the first inning, which means that I didn’t experience the service debacle that Bryan Cauwels (Hey Bud, PleA’se stop the TeA’se) did. According to Cauwels, many of the concession stands were not fully staffed or ready to serve until 1:30 PM. If this was a strategic plan by the A’s and Aramark to work with a late-arriving crowd, it backfired as many were left standing at concessionaires that normally would’ve been open at that time. Cauwels also went to the West Side Club, where he tried to get sandwich, only to be turned down because the sandwich vendor ran out of bread. I’m not sure how a vendor runs out of bread before a game starts, but it doesn’t make much sense.

By the second and third innings, the lines cleared up and nearly every stand along the original concourses was open. Both stands in the value deck were also open. Lines were short or non-existent, except in the West Side Club. That’s where, in between games, I hung out with a bunch of AN regulars. While in the Club I got an impassioned plea from Josh “emperor nobody” Chase Fields, which was centered on protecting the A’s legacy and progressing to something better (a new ballpark), then an assault on baseball’s antitrust exemption, and finally, a polemic. Since I don’t do polemicizing on the blog, I’m going to try to distill what he said into something with a little less heightened rhetoric. That’ll take some time, so that’s for later in the week.

Once the second game started, I roamed around the Coliseum as I’m wont to do from time to time. Seagulls hovered over the seats, confused about the crowd that was not abandoning the birds’ rightful dinner (their Pavlovian cue is the seventh inning stretch). After taking in the sun for several innings in Section 205, I walked around to the other side of the Coli and met up again with the ANers in 229.

All the while, I was keeping tabs on something statistical. I have a passing interest in the Bay Area’s microclimates, hence my nom de plume (partly). Since we were guaranteed at least six hours of baseball from first pitch to last, I figured I’d jot down the temperatures in both Oakland and San Jose during the game. These are according to AccuWeather, which has in its data a statistic called Real Feel. Real Feel is a trademarked, not publicly codified measure containing a composite of ambient temperature, humidity, sunlight, wind, and other factors combined to approximate the actual feeling on skin. For the period when the sun broke through, there were times when the sun brought the temperature inside the stadium well above 70. When the low clouds reformed, temperatures felt as though they dropped considerably. Saturday was unseasonably cool, so to compare the two cities properly I’ll run this again next month, when the region hits its seasonal highs.

Dew point - which is closely tied to humidity - in the region is usually between 50 and 58 degrees Fahrenheit, which is one reason why the Bay Area is so comfortable year round.

In future comparisons, I’ll probably use data from both AccuWeather and Weather Underground for greater granularity and accuracy. Let me know what you’d like to see in this. What I’m most curious about is the effect of humidity on a baseball’s flight. We on the West Coast have a good idea of what the marine layer can do to a fly ball, especially at night, but there hasn’t been much written or said about why. I think it’s really important to understand this, so that we can know what the right-sized ballpark is in Oakland, San Jose, etc. As much as I love 1-0 pitching matchups, I also don’t want our developing hitters in the farm system to feel that they’re condemned to a life of singles and doubles if they don an A’s uniform. There’s a lot more coming on weather and climate throughout the second half of the season.

07.14.11
by

Refreshing the Territorial Rights debate

A bunch of comments about T-rights in the last thread got me thinking it’s time to reset the debate. There’s some confusion about what was done when and for whom. Previously I’ve written a primer and other posts designed to get into further depth (The Neukom Doctrine, When encroachment is not encroachment). Now let’s get a long-held myth out of the way.

Team X originally held the rights to Santa Clara County. FALSE. According to Doug Pappas, the use of counties to define territorial rights did not become part of the Major League by-laws until the early 90’s. Not coincidentally, this was at the same time that Wally Haas agreed to “give” Santa Clara County to Bob Lurie so that the Giants could pursue ballpark proposals in San Jose and Santa Clara (the city). Historically, teams held rights to their own cities and in some cases other cities well outside their own metropolitan region. In the 90’s teams started to define what their regions were by annexing surrounding counties.The Baltimore Orioles also pursued this line by specifying just about everything between Baltimore and DC, even including parts of the District via the use of Rule 52, also known as the 15-mile rule.

The table below lists all teams in the two-team markets and some data for comparison, including the defined operating territory for each team. The Major League Constitution defines an operating territory as the area “within which (clubs) have the right and obligation to play baseball games as the home Club.”

Note that operating territories in several cases includes both cities and counties. On the other hand, television broadcast territories are all shared.

Note that operating territories in several cases includes both cities and counties. On the other hand, television broadcast territories are all shared.

Baltimore’s deal looks similar to what the A’s are getting now. The biggest difference is that they control their local TV market through MASN, which was created as part of the deal to allow the Expos to move to DC. The O’s pay the Nats a fee to carry TV rights, controlling all revenues that come into the network. Once Nationals Park opened, the Nats actually surpassed the O’s in annual revenue.

The ongoing Dodgers saga could provide its own test of territorial rights. SPORTSbyBrooks reports that MLB is in talks with AEG about a possible downtown ballpark near Staples Center and the LACC. That’s the same area targeted for a NFL domed stadium, making it highly unlikely that both could be downtown. However, it’s not hard to see MLB using this as a stalking horse against Frank McCourt, just in case bankruptcy proceedings allow him to keep Dodger Stadium and the parking lots, if not the team itself. Even if both the NFL and the Dodgers don’t bite there could be another interested party: Angels owner Arte Moreno. Despite the recent signing of lease options at The Big A, the Angels are only locked in through the 2016 season. Moreno is open to looking all over the LA for the next home, and unlike the A’s restrictions vis-a-vis Santa Clara County, Moreno can look at the entire region. That includes downtown LA, which would place the Angels 2.5 miles from Dodger Stadium. Preposterous as it sounds, Moreno hasn’t been afraid to play the leverage game, and the timing of having such an option available would play right into his hands. It’s unlikely that the next version of the ML Constitution will split the LA market unless MLB arranges a downtown LA ballpark deal with AEG and the Dodgers’ next owner, a deal that sounds too complicated to actually work.

Going back to the Bay Area situation, I’ve been trying to figure out how redrawn territories might look if the A’s were to move to San Jose. The pro-San Jose crowd likes to think that the Bay Area would become a large shared territory, like NY/LA/CHI. However, I don’t think that’s realistic. DC-Baltimore remains a split market and with the teams separated by 35 miles and the cities having their own distinct identities, it’s a much better comparison to the Bay Area. A swap of the East Bay for the South Bay is also suspect because it’s practically worthless to the Giants. Operating territories mean nothing except when it comes to playing home games, and the Giants aren’t going to look at building in Oakland anytime in the next, well, forever. Yet the Giants would object to leaving the East Bay unassigned since they wouldn’t want a third MLB team 10 miles or less from China Basin, as unlikely as that sounds. Pro-Oakland forces could lobby MLB to leave the East Bay unassigned, but that does little to address the monetary obstacles in getting a new ballpark built there. It’s clear that either San Jose or Santa Clara County would have to be assigned to the A’s instead of the territory being shared.

The strange thing about the county-based annexation done during the 90’s is that most ballparks are built in downtowns, or at least within major cities’ limits. The Rangers are the only exception to this rule, with their home being halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth in Arlington. One of the iterations of the Washington Senators moved to the Twin Cities suburb of Bloomington at first before moving to Minneapolis proper. The Florida Marlins have always played in the Miami suburb of Miami Gardens, though they’ll move to a ballpark within the city limits next season. With public dollars drying up and tools like redevelopment severely restricted in California, it may be time to redefine what an operating territory is. Just from a practical standpoint, we know several things about what MLB looks for in a ballpark site (in no particular order):

  • Downtown or sufficiently urban location, close to transit if possible
  • Significant infrastructure already in place near the ballpark site
  • Large enough market population and economic strength to make a move worthwhile for the team and MLB as a whole
  • Proximity to existing fans in cases where building in an established market

It’s hard to believe that a piece of suburban, undeveloped land would fulfill these requirements. Knowing this, it may be best to pare back the definition of operating territory to cities instead of counties. For the Bay Area, that would mean the Giants’ territory would strictly be the City/County of San Francisco, while the A’s territory would strictly be San Jose. The rest of the Bay Area could be shared/restricted from the standpoint of hosting a major league franchise, with both teams requiring consent for further moves or incursions by each other or “invading” major or minor league teams. The point of the operating territory is to maximize physical accessibility to fans throughout a market. The Bay Area’s sprawling landscape makes it difficult to do that for all fans, since either the North Bay or South Bay will be pinched. If MLB is looking to evolve the game now just as they did 20 years ago, T-rights are worth a rethink in order to maximize presence for baseball fans throughout the Bay Area, not just the Giants.