Category Archives: San Jose

02.22.11
by

Wolff on Guardino’s KLIV radio show tonight

As Santa Clara prepares to “finalize” its stadium deal, Lew Wolff will be on SVLG head Carl Guardino’s “The CEO Show” tonight on KLIV (AM 1590). Wolff’s been making the media rounds every so often, though the tone of this interview should be different from Rick Tittle’s excellent work from two weeks ago. Last September SVLG officially came out in support of an A’s move to San Jose, and sent a letter to Bud Selig urging him to make it happen.

Update 7:05 PM – Interesting, Mike Crowley is on with Wolff.

7:17 PM – Wolff answering a caller’s question about Oakland’s issues with attendance and retaining a team: “I don’t think the situation in Oakland is that bad as far as the fanbase. The difficulty is in putting together a privately financed stadium.“

7:27 PM – Wolff talks about Cisco’s technology push, which uses concepts seen in Minority Report, probably via near field communication.

7:29 PM – If you’re thinking the callers so far are all ringers, they are. Except maybe one.

7:30 PM – About the Quakes and the $60 million investment for the stadium there: “$100 million for 17 homes games a season is a bit of a reach.“

7:35 PM – Time to build the ballpark: 30 months, assuming (the A’s) don’t get sued, as long as we get the process going.

One of the interesting asides from the interview came in Guardino’s 10 questions segment. Asked what was his favorite book, Wolff replied that it was an out-of-print autobiography of developer William Zeckendorf, who built Century City in Los Angeles and owned the land on which the UN headquarters in New York would eventually be built. As is often the case with many CEOs, he makes his employees read his favorite book.

02.15.11
by

Could Beane leave if San Jose is not approved?

After Ken Rosenthal (and Scott Boras) took a whack at the A’s murky future, Fox Sports colleague Bob Klapisch took his turn today. In his piece, Klapisch claims that unless things turn around from a revenue standpoint, Billy Beane may not be with the organization much longer:

In fact, Beane’s friends say this is his last go-round — if the A’s aren’t allowed to move to San Jose, he’ll officially pass the baton to assistant David Forst and look for a Plan B for the rest of his professional life. It’s anyone’s guess what would be next for Beane; remember, this is the same executive who turned down what should’ve been a dream job, controlling the Red Sox.

Beane’s record isn’t spotless. Like any GM not named Ruben Amaro, Jr., he’s made plenty of mistakes over the years regarding personnel. Yet he’s still among the top GMs in the game, and along with David Forst they once again have the A’s back on an upswing. That said, frequent talk of the A’s being small market – or more appropriately low revenue – sounds like whining after a while, and constantly bemoaning one’s station while being the only GM to own part of a team is not going to engender sympathy.

Thing is, Beane can only play Sisyphus for so long. Other GMs have a much larger margin of error when it comes to putting together teams and payrolls. We all know that pinning the franchise’s hopes on Eric Chavez set the team back for years. High revenue teams can have two or three Chavez contracts without suffering too much. Even the Giants got away with Barry Zito being a parasite last year, and his contract alone is worth two Chavys. It’s not hard to see how Beane could see that proverbial rock rolling back downhill and choose to walk away.

One of the things I think we’re seeing from the national media who’ve chimed in on this (Klapisch, Rosenthal, Gammons) is that they, like us, want to see what Billy can do when he has all of the tools the other GMs do. We all want to see a culmination to Billy’s story, because frankly, even with Moneyball, the story isn’t finished. So while some of the pro-Oakland crowd might look at the national media as ganging up on Oakland, it’s losing sight of the big picture. In the end the A’s need to be able to compete and the best economic chance to do so comes in San Jose, not Oakland. That observation comes in contrast to much of the local media (Newhouse, Ratto, Cohn, Killion), who have often been against ownership’s stadium wranglings, holding up the legacy of the team over all else – a valid argument but not one firmly planted in reality.

At 48, Billy Beane is still a reasonably young man for a GM. Even if he stays with the A’s, it’s not hard to see him being booted upstairs to a CEO/President type of position where he no longer does any day-to-day work with the ballclub. Whether he leaves or not, he’s not going to be a GM for the next 20 years. If he leaves before he and we feel his work his done, it’ll be a huge blow psychologically since it’ll be an admission that the A’s, as they currently stand in financial limbo, cannot compete long term. It won’t be easy to be a fan if that day comes.

02.15.11
by

News for 2/15/11

Marc Morris of Better Sense San Jose argues against using scarce San Jose redevelopment funds for a ballpark. He makes very good points about cuts to neighborhood business districts and other smaller projects. At the same time, the claim that stadiums don’t provide much economic benefit is a stroke too broad, considering that locally we have two examples that have provided such benefits: AT&T Park and HP Pavilion. Morris was against the arena 20 years ago, and I sense that he’s tilting at windmills as an encore.

The Federal Transit Administration approved full funding of the first part of the BART-to-Silicon Valley extension. This approval is only for the initial phase, which would terminate three miles northeast of Diridon at Berryessa. The second phase is the Downtown San Jose tunnel and further route up to Santa Clara/SJC. Next, the funding must be approved as part of the next federal budget.

There’s a ton of coverage of the Wilpon-Madoff situation, which seems fluid and with a higher price tag for Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz, and in the end, the Mets. ESPN’s Outside the Lines has a thumbnail sketch.

The Los Angeles Lakers are partnering with Time Warner Cable to have all local game broadcasts on a pair of new regional sports networks: one in English and one in Spanish. Unlike most sports networks which utilize SAP for Spanish audio while using the same video feed, the twin Spanish network will have its own audio/video and production. Update 9:43 AM – Multiple sources have the new deal pegged at 20 years, $3 Billion. Even if two-thirds of that were given over to network operations and revenue sharing, that would leave $50 million per year for the team – nearly enough to take care of team payroll by itself for the next 2-3 CBAs. Also, the deal may have an effect on the Dodgers in that Frank McCourt has been talking about starting up a similar twin-language RSN. He may choose to jump to the Lakers-TWC network if the price is right, or use that as leverage to get a better deal from Fox. Fox recently gave McCourt an additional $111 million over the next three years to cover expenses associated with running the ballclub, so there’s a question as to who really has the leverage here.

A pair of articles by Neil deMause (for Baseball Prospectus) and Pete Toms (for The Biz of Baseball) on the upcoming MLB CBA negotiations should give you an idea of where the two sides stand at this point. One word missing from either article: contraction.

Deadspin has a tale of two guys who had the run of Camden Yards after an Orioles game was postponed. Is it true? Does it matter?

CBS College Sports Network will be renamed CBS Sports Network. Hmmm…

02.07.11
by

Could San Jose A’s and Giants coexist?

The cover story in this week’s San Jose/Silicon Valley Business Journal discusses multiple scenarios in which the A’s (subscription required, written by Eli Segall), should they move to San Jose, would have to indemnify the San Jose Giants, the High-A affiliate of the San Francisco ballclub. The parent club bought controlling interest in the team last year, which could lead into a handsome payoff just for the minor league team in addition to whatever is agreed upon for the SF team. In the article, Roger Noll estimates that the A’s would have to pay the SJ Giants $4 million, which would be in addition to $20-30 million for the parent club Noll estimated a year ago.

The worry for the “little” Giants is that the A’s will siphon away sponsorship dollars, which in a large city such as San Jose is a goldmine for a mere Class-A club. The rest of the California League cities can’t hold a candle to San Jose in terms of corporate sponsorship potential. Despite the looming A’s threat, SJ Giants CEO Jim Weyermann isn’t worried much about losing attendance since the fan demographics are different, and there’s a chance that sponsors could be retained.

A sidebar mentions the fact that $14.5 million in renovations to San Jose Municipal Stadium are on hold pending the fate of the SJ Giants, which is of course tied to the A’s. Should the A’s move to SJ it’s likely that the SJ Giants would be forced to move. But that isn’t a given as Lew Wolff signaled that he’d be fine with the Giants staying there. Going this route would change the eventual terms of compensation, since Wolff and his partners wouldn’t have to go out-of-pocket for relocation costs. Instead they might have to foot part of the bill for compensation and for renovations to Muni – still not cheap but definitely cheaper.

Last month, Pacific Baseball Partners head Chris Lee made news when he admitted that the SF Giants’ refusal to do anything regarding T-rights has put his ballpark project in jeopardy. After I made my post I got this clarification from Lee:

“…note that the request to the (SF Giants) is not to move their affiliate to Sonoma County, but to relocate some other team, whatever its affiliation may be.”

It is possible that one of the other Cal League teams, perhaps Bakersfield, could relocate to Windsor, though given the circumstances, the frontrunner would still be the San Jose Giants. For that change to happen, the A’s move would have to be the first domino to fall.

If the San Jose Giants can stay in town, great. The parent Giants could choose to keep the team there in order to keep its foothold, though that would work against any idea that they bought into the little Giants to raise potential compensation. Keeping the SJ Giants in town would undoubtedly be the cheapest option for the A’s from a bottom line standpoint. From a strategic standpoint, it would make much more sense for the Giants to take advantage of an opening in the North Bay if the A’s go south. The SF Giants aren’t exactly greatly accessible from Sonoma County, with an hour drive from Santa Rosa to Larkspur just to catch the ferry. Still, it’s not as if common sense has prevailed in these matters so far. Why think it would happen now?

02.01.11
by

It’s a buyer’s market: SJRA land bidding short of target

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel has the scoop on the six downtown property sales, and it’s not as good as expected. SJRA had the cumulative appraisal of the properties at $26 million, whereas the combined bids submitted (deadline 4 PM Monday) was $19.6 million. The lower sum may be enough to acquire the remaining ballpark site, but it won’t cover the Autumn Parkway project or mitigations, which are just as important to the execution of the project.

Lew Wolff did not have any of the winning bids:

One bidder who won’t be considered: A’s owner Lew Wolff, a prominent developer, who made an offer for the annex and parking garage at the Fairmont hotel, which he already owns. But instead of bidding on each property separately — as required — Wolff made a combined offer for an undisclosed price that the agency won’t consider, agency chief Harry Mavrogenes said.

Was Wolff only in there to get the bidding up? In any case, SJRA reserves the right to pull any of the parcels off the market if it feels the highest bid isn’t high enough, which may be the case for the Fairmont garage. Hopefully they won’t have to dip into existing cash reserves to get everything done.

Among the highest bidders are the biggest builders in the South Bay, specifically Barry Swenson and Sobrato. The good news is that they have proven track records of delivering on big projects in and around downtown San Jose. And it wouldn’t be surprising if they were pulling for the ballpark effort since the ballpark’s success could have an indirect effect on their ability to further develop and sell in the area.

There’s some question as to whether or not SJRA should hold off completely until the market improves, but there’s no telling when that will happen. Besides, does anyone remember how much the land was supposed to cost when the agency started acquiring land? There’s a fair price and then there’s a fair price.

01.31.11
by

Redevapocalypse What-If Scenarios

Now for the “fun” part.

Last night I described the fate of redevelopment in a California where the concept no longer works within the budget framework. Today it’s time to discuss all of the great/terrible fates that await our favorite local sports franchises should RDA funding sources dry up.

49ers Bond Rush
It all starts not with the Oakland Athletics, but rather the San Francisco 49ers. The linchpin to the Santa Clara stadium plan is $114 million in public funds, $42 million of it from the RDA (the 49ers would provide a partial advance). This money would have to be raised before any RDA dissolution or cutbacks take place, so the deadline would presumably be sometime in the next 4-5 months. This means that Santa Clara would have to go to the bond market three times for the stadium project:

  • $42 million from the RDA
  • $35 million from the newly assembled Mello-Roos district (hotel taxes)
  • $330 million from the Stadium Authority

If the RDA doesn’t get the bonds by the deadline, there’s no chance that the hotels will even tax themselves for their piece, let alone fund a RDA shortfall. The agreement between Santa Clara and the Niners would have to be reopened so that an alternate funding source could be inserted, and that source couldn’t be tied to the general fund in any way. The Stadium Authority couldn’t get started because there’d be no certainty of the project getting off the ground until the funding package worked itself out.

$40 million doesn’t seem like a big deal as it’s less then 5% of the project cost. It’s still a lot of money to raise and a big enough gap to throw a wrench into the works. There’s a chance that both parties could figure out a way to bridge the gap but it’s not going to happen immediately, and unless it’s the team pledging to cover it completely, any contractual details will require renewed scrutiny.

Should the team find the sledding too rough, there’s always a Plan B. They can run to Oakland, where the Coliseum Authority and the Raiders will be waiting with open arms.

The Coliseum Authority has bonding authority and capacity through its joint powers, the City of Oakland and Alameda County. There’s that nagging problem of ongoing debt burdening both parties through 2026, which can be looked at one of two ways: Should the JPA endeavor to get a new two-team NFL stadium built in the hopes that helps cover the debt or cut its losses and keep paying the debt even though the Raiders could be long gone before it’s retired? (Not that amassing more debt is favorable as the current bonds were downgraded to BBB last month.)

The problem Oakland and the JPA has going forward is the fact that the new Raiders stadium plan had integrated redevelopment along Hegenberger, including a new conference center, hotel and retail. With the well run dry, none of that stuff could get built unless some new taxation/indebtedness occurred, or unless the stadium project’s funding coved it. So what you’d be left with is in all likelihood an updated version of the stadium and arena complex, surrounded by parking. Sounds familiar, eh?

On the other hand, if Santa Clara is able to get the funding ball rolling, it’ll prompt the Raiders to move more quickly in order to leave Oakland. Al Davis isn’t going to live forever, and Roger Goodell is a take-no-prisoners negotiator who has been clamoring for the two teams to share a stadium. Whatever the location, expect an agreement between the host city and the two teams sooner rather than later. Otherwise it might be too late for both.

Which Way Warriors
We’ve discussed the Warriors and the Lacob-Guber group’s interest in San Francisco. The Port of SF owns land to the south of AT&T Park that could be well suited for an arena. This is important as the money’s already spent, no new funds required. In order for a new arena to be built, it would have to be privately financed and it would make the most fiscal sense if two teams shared the arena, not just one. This model has worked well in Chicago and Dallas, where both cities’ representative hoops and hockey teams created partnerships to build their venues. The Giants being the developer has only limited impact since they couldn’t materially impact which touring acts or other events came to town. Two teams means two major winter sports teams, not just the W’s and a minor league franchise.

Can it be done? The Giants/Warriors would have to attract the Sharks or a second NHL team, neither of which seems likely. SVSE would probably entertain the offer as a way to extract lease concessions from San Jose, but it wouldn’t move beyond that. It’s much like trying to get the W’s to move south permanently – it’s technically doable but highly unlikely. Lacob-Guber could also use the SF arena as a stalking horse for improvements to the Arena.

Again, any new arena in SF is only possible if it is privately financed. The good news? There will be so little big project construction in the future (save for public facilities) that the labor could be relatively cheap.

It was nice knowing you Cowtown
Unlike some of the whispering about MLB contracting two teams, there actually has been talk about contracting the Kings. And it will only get louder as the current season draws to a close later this summer. The woes of the Kings and the Maloofs have been chronicled here and elsewhere for some time now, and there doesn’t seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel for them. Mayor Kevin Johnson is playing this like he has to walk the ball up the floor and dump it into the post every possession instead of being able to do anything dynamic like this. Being a mayor is a tough job. I want to see the Kings stay in Sac, but it’s hard to see long term with every proposal linked to some kind of redevelopment. The NBA probably won’t buy them as it did the Hornets, which leaves the Kings in some sort of limbo for years to come.

San JosA’s
The landbanking strategy San Jose has used for years has never been more wise than right now, as it works to cobble together the remaining land at Diridon. As I understand it, the money is basically untouchable at this point and SJRA can do whatever it wants as long it takes care of its housing set-asides (25%). If SJ and the A’s are given the green light, the vote this summer or fall won’t be about ballparks vs. schools since the money will already be spent. The debate will be about baseball vs. other housing or commercial developers in a time of a glut of both housing and office space. And yes, the decision could drag on for another several months or even a year.

Oakland mayor Jean Quan has been publicly silent on what the death of RDAs could mean for the Victory Court project, and that’s not a good sign. When the mayors went up to the Capitol last week, the most quotable guy there was Chuck Reed, not Quan. There should be a greater sense of urgency there if Oakland’s various supporters want the donut hole strategy to come to fruition, but it’s not happening publicly, perhaps by design. Should the EIR be delivered at the beginning of April, there will be ample opportunity to go over every detail of the document, and it’s that thoroughness baked into the CEQA process that could eventually kill MLB in Oakland. The way I see it, Bud Selig is looking for a politically expedient opportunity to declare support for San Jose, and that could come in the form of a 400-page EIR that brings up more questions than answers. Why? Because Lew Wolff has to have been in his ear constantly about this redevelopment business, and opportunities are running out fast. Maybe the day of reckoning wont occur immediately, it might occur well along in the process as it did in Fremont. Either way the clock is ticking as it is for AT&T in that commercial for the Verizon iPhone.

Of course, if Let’s Go Oakland had declared Victory Court as its site in December 2009 instead of 2010, Oakland might not be in such a bad position. Oakland’s only saving grace now is something out of its control: the continued difficulty with T-rights negotiations. That’s like basing your retirement plan on an upcoming shared inheritance – will you get a good enough piece, or will it mostly go to the more favored child/mistress/charity? It’s not a real investment strategy.

01.30.11
by

A Lawsuit-free Redevelopment Solution

When Mark Purdy starts writing about the state of redevelopment, you know it’s serious.

The truth is, whether by design or accident, Selig has dawdled so much that any Northern California ballpark plan could be imperiled by new Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan for the state to scarf up redevelopment funds. Oakland was counting on those funds to buy ballpark property. Fortunately, San Jose has already purchased most of its land and has a Plan B to obtain the rest — selling other downtown parcels owned by the city and using that money to buy up the remaining ballpark footprint.

Following up on former San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery’s appearance on The Ronn Owens Show, Purdy is taking the tack of calling Bill Neukom’s stance on T-rights silly, as opposed to McEnery’s appeal to Neukom’s better angels. Again, I can’t see this media campaign as being effective other than the fact that the issue remains in public view, which may be the point.

Going back to redevelopment, an article in today’s Merc tries to project what would happen in the near term to the beleaguered SJRA. The agency has tax increment over 8,100 acres of property in SJ city limits, equivalent to a 12 square miles or a city the size of Mountain View. Even if Sacramento ordered SJRA to stop any new development contracts tomorrow, they couldn’t claim any new tax increment off the top because it’s already sworn to pay off debt for existing projects. That’s because nothing new is being built in San Jose other than a few projects which started a few years ago such as the Brocade headquarters in North San Jose. For Sacramento to be able to get “new unsecured” tax increment, San Jose and other cities would have to embark on a new development boom, or at least encounter a situation where a bunch of property gets sold among private parties. That means that, ironically, one of the ways Brown could see that new tax increment is if he allows the RDAs to make their last hurrahs and go out with a bang by approving new projects, like a Diridon ballpark. Diridon would be a different case from most other new projects in that no new funding source would be required to complete the project.

That’s not a situation that would work in Oakland, since ORA would have borrow against future tax increment to assemble the Victory Court land and infrastructure. That’s exactly what Brown wants to prevent. Oakland could raise funds without ORA, but it would have to occur via a hike in sales tax or a parcel tax, the same kind used for local school improvements, and thus would require a vote. Should the dissolution or scaling back of RDAs happen – say by this summer – the biggest obstacle facing San Jose would also face Oakland, except that Oakland would require a supermajority (2/3rds approval) 55% approval per Brown’s proposal for limited redevelopment, whereas San Jose would require only a simple majority (no new taxes). Judging by the results of the last vote on a parcel tax measure in Oakland (for police funding), it’s not very promising.

Even if the cuts were quick, there’s no chance that they’d be clean. The Bay Citizen’s Zusha Elinson ponts out that both Oakland and San Jose have a lot of budget crossover between RDA and City, with both cities paying for some police task forces and even city council members’ salaries. When Controller John Chiang finishes his audit of 18 cities (including SJ), he may find that whatever revenue Governor Brown thought he could realize by killing RDAs was a mere illusion. Then what?

Then there’s the issue of what tool Brown would use to extract funds. He promised not to go after already under contract projects. He might go after recently agreed upon projects, the ones cities have been rushing to approve over the last few years weeks. This goes against the spirit of Proposition 22 which was passed in November. Brown and his aides talked of Prop 22, which is now enshrined as a constitutional amendment, being moot if the agencies themselves were eliminated. But that would undoubtedly run into lawsuits and scared the big city mayors enough to lobby Brown in the Capitol last Wednesday. The result of the meeting was that the mayors, including Chuck Reed and Jean Quan among others, agreed to put together a “working group” whose mission it is to make a counterproposal. Given our experience with panels/committees/working groups, the mayors aren’t the best bet right now.

A compromise solution may come from the legislature. Assemblyman Jim Beall suggests that the state could place a cap on the percentage of tax increment any RDA takes. For many cities and specific redevelopment districts, such a step would amount to a freeze. San Jose would have to search far and wide for projects in areas not affected by a cap, whereas Oakland might benefit from having large swaths of former industrial lands or brownfields which could work under the cap. It’s unlikely that this solution would net the $1.7 Billion in revenue Brown is seeking, but at least it would keep the lawyers at bay. I could also see a situation where there are caps on individual projects based on proportionality. Even if San Jose wanted to raise bonds for a big project right now it would be in trouble because Fitch just dropped its rating on non-housing RDA bonds from A to BBB-, putting the confidence in SJRA bonds just barely above that of junk bonds.

If you’re reading this and thinking, “GAWD why is ML writing about this crap again?!?!” or “Cities have too much power to let RDAs die” I suggest you read up on this. I assure you, when it comes to the A’s staying in the Bay Area long term, it’s very serious. The cities aren’t acting like they’ve got nothing to lose, they’re battening down the hatches. The end is nigh for the era of modern redevelopment throughout California, and if cities aren’t proactive, the chances of being able to pull off the next big library/sports facility/city hall/transit hub will dwindle to nothing (admittedly some are cheering this on).

Tomorrow, I’ll go over the weird possibilities for the local sports teams if RDAs were to crumble.

01.26.11
by

Cisco goes cyclical in Fremont

In what will probably end up a footnote in this neverending saga, Cisco completed acquisition of the bulk of the Pacific Commons site (the Trib’s George Avalos reporting). 103 acres were purchased from Catellus (ProLogis) in December 2009, followed by another 41 acres last month. Judging from the sizes of the acquired parcels, they do not include the area slated for a movie theater and Target.

Cisco could build a new campus in Fremont, but it’s not likely to happen anytime soon. Instead, it seems more likely that they may end up selling or leasing the property to some up-and-coming tech company, though being in Fremont tends to limit the kinds of firms that might locate or relocate there. Cisco also bought land near the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station with the intent to expand there. They ended up selling that property to the quasi-public State Compensation Insurance Fund. SCIF is relocating from San Francisco to Pleasanton and Vacaville, citing high costs at the mid-Market headquarters.

The stretch marks and scars of boom and bust cycles are everywhere throughout Silicon Valley. Aerospace and defense contractors were replaced by PC hardware manufacturers who were themselves replaced by Web companies. Farmland and orchards gave way to giant campuses for Cisco and eBay. Facebook may be moving into Sun’s former headquarters in Menlo Park. Such is the pace of innovation.

Speaking of transformations, the Argus’ Matt Artz has been trying to figure out what will happen with Union Pacific buying all of that old NUMMI land. He dug up some information on an railyard expansion project UP did in Lathrop, which would grow the yard from 134 to 277 acres over 10 years. The Lathrop yard, which runs 24/7 and was moved there to get out of an urbanized locale in Stockton, has a whopping 83 jobs on site. I’m sure the folks at the Taco Bravo on Auto Mall and Grimmer are ecstatic about having one job for every two acres come into their part of town. And as active as Fremont Citizens Network was in fighting the Warm Springs ballpark, they seem to be completely ignoring UP’s railyard plan.

San Jose note from erw, who attended the long session tonight (but he spoke at least twice!):

Both the Diridon Station Area Good Neigbor Committee’s Framework for Implementation and the Planning Dept.’s Diridon Station Area Plan passed unanimously. Council was very careful to not do anything to affect the parking for Pavilion/SVSE. Next steps: GNC to reconvene when big developments come up (HSR, Baseball) and an EIR for the Station Area Plan (expected complete by March 2011).

I should also add that an EIR study session may occur sometime in April. The Diridon Station Master Plan’s goal is to address near-term (10 years) development and construction in the area. In doing this, planners have made the following assumptions:

  1. Construction of Ballpark
  2. Development of the Core Area
  3. Development of the former San Jose Water Co. site (Adobe)
  4. Construction of BART Box [cut and cover]

The Master Plan EIR (separate from the already certified Ballpark EIR) will contain an alternative to the ballpark which has 2.4-5.3 million square feet of new commercial space.

01.25.11
by

Former SJ Mayor McEnery calls Neukom “Unseemly”

On Ronn Owens’ second hour (MP3) today, former San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery likened the Giants’ hold of the South Bay’s territorial rights to assigning Eastern European buffer states per the Warsaw Pact. A bit over the top? A postwar version of Godwin’s Law?

McEnery tried to appeal to Owens in terms of fairness for baseball and the Giants in terms of the A’s no longer having to receive revenue sharing. As a stand-in, Owens was steadfast in his defense of Bill Neukom’s position, arguing that “there’s nothing in it for (Neukom).” McEnery characterizes Neukom’s actions as “acting in an unseemly manner” in his defense of the T-rights. The Giants just won a World Series, have a reality show, what more do they want?

When confronted about corporate interests potentially fleeing the Giants for the A’s, McEnery brought up the big letter from SVLG. Owens replied that no corporate interest could guarantee its patronage, especially if the economy took a turn for the worse.

Regarding the Sharks and their previous resistance to the ballpark project, McEnery (SVSE board member) felt that the deal struck with the city last summer would take care of the Sharks’ concerns as long as it progressed properly and fairly.

It was certainly a disjointed debate, and I don’t think McEnery convinced anyone. I doubt that calling your opponent unseemly is a great way to bring him to the table. It’s pretty clear that judging from the comments on this blog and elsewhere that the public debate has ground down to an impasse long ago. It’s better that the talking heads let Selig and his people do their thing and stop the lobbying.

P.S. I missed one McEnery response I thought was interesting in when he fielded a question about SJRA buying land for the ballpark and Wolff buying other SJRA land, “In the context of the stadium, I think it’s a legitimate investment, but I’m sure if the A’s were allowed to come (to San Jose) they’d pay for that (Diridon) too.” He also put up a good defense for redevelopment – as it’s done in San Jose at least.

01.25.11
by

News for 1/25/11

On Tuesday, San Jose’s City Council/Redevelopment Agency will hold a session (7 PM, Council Chambers) to approve the co-op agreement that was to be drafted after last Wednesday’s special meeting. At five pages, the co-op agreement (PDF) is short and is mostly concerned with setting aside funds for affordable housing projects. If the City Council approves, $58 million of funds currently on-hand would be set aside for those housing projects and other RDA activities, which would presumably include the ballpark project once proceeds from agency land sales became available.

Another item on the agenda is the long awaited Good Neighbor Committee presentation, which will go over the new Diridon Station Area Master Plan. The Plan, which came about after more than a year worth of meetings, divides the area into 3 sectors:

  • North: Above The Alameda (Santa Clara Street) and west to Stockton Avenue. Most of the area is covered by HP Pavilion.
  • Central: The ballpark land and the parking lots and other properties between the ballpark and The Alameda. If the ballpark is not built, an alternative including commercial or office space on the ballpark land.
  • South: Area south of Park Avenue, including fire training land (future park) and area to the east towards downtown.

In other news… as part of the ongoing fight over redevelopment, Controller John Chiang is undergoing a review of 18 agencies throughout the state. The task?

“The reviews will look at how RDAs define a `blighted’ area, whether they are appropriately paying for low and moderate income housing as required, whether they are accurately passing through payments to schools within the community,” Chiang said.

The 18 agencies picked cover a broad range of agency sizes, from the enormous (LA, SJ) to merely large (Fresno, Fremont) to small (Hercules, Desert Hot Springs). San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed has long been adamant about how productive SJRA is compared to some of its counterparts. We’ll see if that holds up. Oakland, whose agency is not part of the review, could stand to gain $10 million for the general fund (enough to fill its budget gap) if the elimination of RDAs statewide goes through. It also means that without ORA, the City would have to raise some other type of bond for an Oakland ballpark – one that would require a referendum.

The A’s will employ the dreaded dynamic ticket pricing system for “premium” home games this season. In the past, the policy was to simply charge more for those games, now it’ll be a baseline price that rises based on demand. This season, dynamic pricing will extend to Opening Night vs. Seattle and the home series vs. SF, BOS, and NYY. If you want to get those seats cheap, you’d best get them early – which is the whole point of the system.

Escondido will not rush to sell $50 million in bonds after all, because they wouldn’t actually be selling bonds. They’d be selling “bond anticipation notes,” which would not necessarily be immune to a RDA raid the same way actual bonds would be.

Rangers co-owner Chuck Greenberg talks about the new video board going up where the old one was at Rangers Ballpark, on top of the right field roof. Too bad the location is so neck-strain inducing from much of the park. He also talked about Cliff Lee and Adrian Beltre, if you’re into reliving that stuff.

This rather innovative beer dispensing system is quite brilliant.

Another new Cactus League ballpark is almost complete. This time it’s Salt River Fields at Talking Stick. IIRC it will be the only such ballpark to sit on tribal land.

The Hornets reached their attendance goal, which means that the team will be staying in NOLA until at least 2014, giving the NBA some time to find a new owner.

Finally, in Cleveland things are so bad at Progressive Field that the Indians are throwing in some serious perks for season ticket holders.

As the team announced Jan. 7, all renewing and new season ticket customers — including those who take advantage of a new offer of bleacher seats for $9 apiece — receive a free suite rental, two free tickets in the club section (where all food, fancy or not, is free) and free membership to the fine-dining Terrace Club.

I’d consider a bleacher full season plan for that. The big takeaway is that they overbuilt the premium facilities by having 121 suites in a three deck stack. While this shows the Indians’ desperation in selling the premium accommodations, there’s a danger in devaluing the premium product. Also, the number of full-season ticket equivalents is 8,000, a number that seems shockingly low and yet all too familiar.