Category Archives: San Jose

07.13.10
by

Coming to a head

Tuesday’s Merc article by Tracy Seipel indicates a sense a desperation among the San Jose boosters and Wolff, in that they need Bud Selig to render a decision on T-rights in order for San Jose to move forward with a ballot measure. In weighs Roger Noll, who feels that Selig hasn’t acted prudently on behalf of either the A’s or Giants.

Roger Noll, a professor of sports economics at Stanford University, said Wolff’s frustration means “Selig isn’t doing the job of a commissioner, which is getting the Giants and the A’s to talk together.” He has predicted the two teams could strike a financial settlement for the territorial rights.

“It’s very difficult to reach a deal without the commissioner coming in and saying, ‘Look, I want a deal… and you guys need to work it out,'” said Noll. “‘And if you don’t, I will impose one on you.”’

Now that would be fantastic for the pro-San Jose folks. Unfortunately, it’s not realistic. From what I’ve gathered, there has been little discussion about prioritizing this issue. Even if Wolff brought it up at the brief owner’s meetings and in the process set himself on fire to get everyone’s attention, I still don’t think Selig and the owners would take action immediately. I could be wrong on this, but I’m going with what I’ve been stating the last six months: San Jose has to get its ducks in a row first, then the owners can talk. Unfair? Yes. Unexpected? Not in the least.

The question arising from this is: What risk is there to the political process if MLB doesn’t take action in time? Well, that’s not easy to quantify. Perhaps some group is taking a poll now on this, but I suspect that trying to explain the history and vagaries of MLB’s Santa Clara County territorial rights to the voting populace would be an exercise in futility. The last polls taken support a ballpark in a general way, so what’s the hold-up? In all likelihood, it’s the ballot language. The measure has a limit of 75 words, and the pols must have numerous drafts on hand, wanting the most ironclad (yet deliberately vague) version in place before they go to the voters. That’s the irony in all of this. MLB won’t budge until SJ has its ducks in a row, and SJ doesn’t want to move unless it has an indication from MLB that it wants to move forward. SJ doesn’t want the extra cost associated with a spring off year special election, and November 2011 is more than merely cutting it close, it’s practically late given a likely construction schedule.

It sounds like an impasse, except that MLB knows that it has survived just fine without a franchise in San Jose for the last century. Can SJ afford to be a little more patient? We’ll find out soon enough.

Note: The article mentions a new grassroots anti-stadium group called Better Sense San Jose. The site has been up since April or May and has a decidedly fiscal slant, though like Stand for San Jose, I’m skeptical as to who’s behind it. WHOIS lookups on the domain owner are blocked, whereas the contact address appears to be a P.O. Box at a UPS Store in the Rose Garden neighborhood. Come on, people, it’s okay to let the public know who you are.

07.12.10
by

Another weekend, another op-ed

Following up on last week’s volley by San Jose booster Larry Stone, Oakland supporter and one-time A’s executive Andy Dolich fires back on the home city’s behalf. He brings up a great point in showing how Oakland has been counted out time and time again, only to emerge as still having its teams. His tack is left a bit wanting, as he repeatedly mines the not-so-recent past for Oakland’s success while not pointing at all to the future, or recent failures. His only hint at the future is a hope that someone will swoop in and buy the A’s out from the Wolff/Fisher group.

The A’s will most likely get their new stadium in Oakland because the A’s will follow the Giants example. In the Giants’ darkest moment, a group came together to keep the team in its rightful place in San Francisco. Oakland elected officials and private, civic-minded business leaders will find a way to build a new ballpark. When fans of the Green and Gold are celebrating their fifth world championship, it will be in Oakland.

I’ve heard this multiple times, yet I’ve never heard it articulated in any meaningful way. Is the idea to wait out the process, hope San Jose fails, Wolff gives up, and sells the team in short order to an Oakland-only interest (that MLB approves of)? It’s not impossible, but it’s not really a strategy. It’s like waiting for your boss to give you a promotion at work even though you’ve been playing Farmville at your desk everytime he drops by. Moreover, is Dolich suggesting that he would be part of the angel ownership group, just as he was part of the Piccinini group? If that happened, then suddenly there would be something concrete. It’s hard to say what other pieces would be part of such an investor group, but at least one would have to be a billionaire in order to carry the weight required to get a new ballpark deal done. Hell, I would love to start that rumor myself, but it would be completely out of thin air.

Speaking of a new ballpark, Dolich cites the Giants the prime example to get something done in Oakland.

It took the Giants 16 years and four failed elections to get their gem of a privately financed jewel at China Basin. It’s a bear to build a new sports venue in today’s California, no matter how much rose coloring you add to your glasses or how much of the owners’ privately funded millions are put into the project.

Point of distinction: When the Giants proposed their “privately financed jewel,” it took only one election to get it approved. The previous three initiatives all involved publicly financed venues in either San Francisco or Santa Clara County. Big difference. Whether in Oakland or San Jose, it’s not hard to envision a ballpark happening once a Yes vote is obtained. Oakland does not have a voting requirement for a stadium, which boosters like to point out frequently, but at the same time it’s remarkably bad form to spend up $50-100 million on land and infrastructure in a budget crunch without getting public approval, especially in light of the Coliseum renovation debacle.

If Oakland and its boosters really want to get citizens of the city and the region out of its collective apathy or disaffection, they need to articulate how this can all be done. It doesn’t have to be done now, but it needs to be done steadily and completely. I’ve received conflicting reports on whether that’s happening, though Mark Purdy, in his latest repetitious plea to Bud Selig, thinks the MLB panel may be working with Oakland interests on such a plan. Personally, I hope that it is happening, whether it’s to perform due diligence throughout the East Bay or to create a viable Plan B if San Jose doesn’t work out. In the constant battling between the two factions, it’s easy to lose sight of the goal of keeping the A’s in the Bay Area. I don’t tire of the posturing since that’s all it is, posturing. Soon, the dog days will be upon us and work will begin anew.

06.15.10
by

Liveblog from 6/15 SJ City Council Session

Lots of stuff on the agenda. The pertinent item tonight is 11.6: Administrative Hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Baseball Stadium in the Diridon/Arena Area.

Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to certify:
(A) The City Council has read and considered the Final Supplemental EIR; and
(B) The Final SEIR has been completed in accordance with the CEQA; and The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San Jose; and The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall transmit copies of the Final SEIR to the Applicant and to any other decision-making body of the City of San Jose for the project.

7:18 PM – After a few ceremonial items, Council is mercifully doing item 11.6 first.

7:24 PM – Public speaker time. Two appellants: Stand for San Jose and Marc Morris (who tool issue with the traffic analysis from the original ballpark EIR).

Attorney Michael Buskirk (Stand for San Jose) is explaining his client’s objections to the SEIR. Essentially, he’s saying that the parking analysis is flawed considering the lack of info for the 6-7 PM weeknight hour.

Marc Morris refers to the Sharks objections, which have been withdrawn. Citizens from Shasta-Hanchett are holding up blue signs in unison.

Thanks to gojohn10 for holding up the sign.

Susan Hammer and Michael Mulcahy are speaking in favor of the project.

Interestingly, at least two speakers want more traffic downtown because it’s an indicator that downtown is thriving.

Other neighborhood advocates are asking for a more comprehensive TPMP in conjunction with the ballpark. Some are concerned about emergency response due to drop in level of service to certain key intersections.

8:08 PM – Public comments over. Staff-council Q&A starts. Already covered ground regrding parking, BART and HSR development.

8:19 PM – Mayor Reed notes that since the A’s aren’t the applicant yet, there’s no one to negotiate a TPMP with. If/when the applicant is able to apply, there will be additional environmental review, which could take the form of an amendment or another supplemental EIR. Reed mentions the negotiating principles that have been set since last year.

Councilman Sam Liccardo puts forth a motion to deny the two appeals and certify the EIR, which was seconded. Vote coming after other council members’ comments.

8:38 PM – Unanimous approval. That’s a wrap. Time for a beer.

06.15.10
by

Odds and ends for June 13

Stadium news from all over.

  • For some reason there are lots of empty seats, even sections, at World Cup matches. It may be a distribution problem. Or no-shows.
  • Dave Newhouse reminisces about the Coliseum’s birth. Frank Deford’s piece from 40 years ago is more comprehensive.
  • SJ Mayor Chuck Reed is encouraged by the Santa Clara measure victory while Roger Noll considers trading the East Bay for the South Bay a wash (I agree).
  • The Merc’s editorial page continues its outlook of cautious optimism.
  • Worried about TV blackouts – in New York, no less – the Jets have cut some PSL prices.
  • Speaking of the Meadowlands, online adultery site AshleyMadison.com is offering $25 million for five years of naming rights for the new stadium. The company has been engaging in various kinds of publicity seeking activities recently, and this is obviously one of them.
  • With all of the big sports events happening over a the last month (World Cup, NBA/NHL finals), it may have been easy to overlook the Miguel Cotto-Yuri Foreman fight held at Yankee Stadium two Saturdays ago. The ring alignment was unusual as it was tucked into the rightfield corner, preserving the infield. The fight itself was also one of the better matches of the year so far, with a wholly unusual ending.
  • In case you’re wondering, the Coliseum is the worst ballpark in the bigs for home runs at exactly 1 HR per game. MLB ballparks usually average 2 HR/game. It doesn’t help that the A’s are 13th in the AL in the category.
  • 6/15: Ann Killion has an Inside Baseball article for SI.com. It attacks A’s ownership and praises the 49ers even though they are at different stages and have different business models. It also doesn’t provide a hint of a solution, though you could go with the “If only they hadn’t alienated/victimized Oakland angle.” Astute analysis? I think not.
  • 6/15: Dave Newhouse hails his old boss at the Trib, George Ross, who helped foster the sports scene in Oakland. Interestingly, they have different stances on the A’s moving south:

    Because Ross worked aggressively to get the A’s, is he upset by the idea of their moving?

    “Professionally, no,” he said. “Because when they built the Coliseum (in 1966), they didn’t built it for either occupant. Al Davis prevailed on them to convert it for his needs, and baseball is less at home there than it should be.

    “If the team moves and stays in the Bay Area — in Contra Costa County, Fremont or San Jose — it will still be part of the Oakland-area sports (scene).”

    This is one time I must disagree with the brainy boss who hired me in 1964. The A’s must remain in Oakland, which should make sure that they get first priority on a new place to play over the Raiders, who were rewarded with a renovated Coliseum, at the A’s expense, upon returning to Oakland in 1995.

    The Raiders left town; the A’s didn’t — not yet. Make sure they don’t, Oakland.

    The difference between the two men appears to be a matter of influence. George Ross could exercise it in a fledgling market with a still influential paper, Newhouse is basically left to plead for action while to some unknown hero while writing for the same paper, which 40 years later is a watered down version of its former self.

On a side note, it is a treat to be able to watch WC matches while I’m eating breakfast every morning. Then I can watch American sports in the evening. Totally rad.

06.13.10
by

Survey from SJ Booster group shows strong ballpark support

The Merc’s Tracy Seipel reported Saturday about results from a new survey commissioned by SJ booster group Pro Baseball for San Jose. The survey did not use a simple yes/no question, instead it gauged support for the ballpark on a 1-10 scale based on the way the project was presented.

  • 77 percent rated the statement, “The A’s will pay the entire cost to build the stadium” an 8 or higher.
  • 72 percent rated the statement, “The plan will not require any tax increase, bond issue, or any money from the city’s general fund” an 8 or higher.
  • 70 percent rated the statement, “The ballpark will be highly connected to transit, with current stations for Caltrain and light rail and future stations for BART and high speed rail all located next to the stadium” an 8 or higher.

The survey had just over 400 respondents and we don’t know much more about the methodology, so it would be foolish to conclude that a November ballot measure would be a slam dunk. Still, it’s another indicator that, outside of a couple of groups opposed to the certified EIR for completely different reasons, the ballpark project does not face heavy opposition and hasn’t for some time.

Tuesday, the City Council will determine the language for the measure. It’ll also tie up the Sharks’ arena operating amendment and new development plan. Assuming that both of those get approved, the next four months will be largely a focused (and potentially expensive) campaign effort. Back in March I did some quick math to determine the likely number of Yes votes the City would need to win in November: 110,793. Boosters will undoubtedly be looking to figure out the best way to secure that number of votes, plus a healthy cushion just in case.

06.11.10
by

SJ City Council Session Tuesday 6/15

Big day next Tuesday. San Jose’s City Council is expected to vote on the ballpark project, whether or not to move it forward to the November election. In preparation, the booster group Pro Baseball for San Jose has put out a flyer eliciting public support for the ballpark. The fireworks are expected to start at 7 p.m. More on this as it comes.

06.10.10
by

Let’s play a game of word replacement

Several Measure J postmortem articles have been flying around the internets over the last 24 hours. The tone of the newest article by SFGate’s John Wildermuth may have the most foreshadowing, since in five months we may be seeing déjà vu. Incredulous? Take a look at the following paragraphs:

But Mayor Gavin Newsom and other supporters of a proposed San Francisco home for the 49ers said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $4 million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a 69,000-seat stadium as part of the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the 49ers flee to the South Bay.

“When the Santa Clara plan falls apart, San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home,” Newsom said. “But we will not wait forever.”

Now let’s take out the proper names.

But Mayor ___ and other supporters of a proposed ___ home for the ___ said the election was the expected triumph of the team’s $__ million-plus campaign effort, arguing that, in the mayor’s words, “the stadium plan is built on shaky economic ground.”

The city, meanwhile, is moving ahead with plans for a __-seat stadium as part of the ___ redevelopment project but will hedge its bet with alternative plans to put housing and commercial development on the site if the ___ flee to the South Bay.

“When the ___ plan falls apart, ___ stands ready to welcome its ___ home,” ___ said. “But we will not wait forever.”

See, SF and Oakland? You aren’t so different after all.

06.02.10
by

Sharks and City strike deal

It looks like something was in the works after all. Despite the Sharks’ objections to the SEIR’s findings and recommendations, they and the City of San Jose agreed on a future location for parking and possible office space (SJ Business Journal, SJ Mercury News).

The terms of the agreement are outlined in pages 68-90 of the June 15 City Council info packet. The section is called “THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED & RESTATED SAN JOSE ARENA MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.” Interestingly, the text of the document points out that because the new parking garage would be an amendment to an existing agreement, the garage would not be considered a new project, and (my interpretation) thus would not require its own separate, new EIR.

The land for the garage is immediately north of HP Pavilion, on currently zoned industrial parcels housing the decades-old Milligan News educational books facility, a foundry, and two houses on N Montgomery St. Like the ballpark parcels, the garage parcels would be subject to negotiation between the current owners and the City, though the City could invoke eminent domain (yikes). San Jose Arena Management (Sharks/SVSE) would be ultimately responsible for the land acquisition and development costs. SJAM would also take in all revenues associated with operating the garage. The City would reciprocate by funding the completion of Autumn Parkway – with what funds is yet to be determined.

new_garage_sm“>

The key here is that the location is not particularly ideal for either the ballpark or the train station, as it’s over 1/3 mile away from either site (Area E above). A connector bridge over Montgomery Street would connect the new garage to the existing elevated parking lot, and a separate vehicle entrance/exit from the planned Autumn Parkway would be the way to get there.While the location isn’t terribly convenient for train/ballpark users, it does solve the issue of maintaining existing parking while a new garage is built. As a result of this deal, both of the published garage options in the existing EIR are now out of the running, though it’s possible and/or likely that they could be revisited as parking demands rise in the future.

What does this mean for the A’s? For now, it means there’s one less obstacle and 1,000+ spaces of additional parking in the area when a ballpark opens, though again it won’t be the most convenient location. In fact, some lots on the other side of CA-87 will be closer. I think we’re moving closer to the notion that the A’s will look to build their own parking garage on the ballpark site, also with 1,000 spaces give or take. The Nats already know what this looks like.

05.26.10
by

Three parties appeal EIR certification

Following last week’s certification, three parties have appealed the planning commission’s decision.

The San Jose Sharks, Stand for San Jose (a coalition backed by the San Francisco Giants) and a resident who lives near the stadium site allege that the report, which the commission approved last week, does not adequately analyze or disclose potential impacts from traffic and parking, among other issues.

Chances are that the City Council will move forward despite the appeals. It’ll be up to the various parties to see whether or not a lawsuit is filed. The important piece of news to come out of this is the date of the council’s hearing: June 15.

05.19.10
by

EIR Certified (San Jose)

Darryl Boyd is doing a brief presentation on the SEIR (“S” for supplemental) process. So far, letters have been submitted by the Shasta/Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association, the San Jose Sharks, and San Jose Giants. Staff recommends certification due to no new impacts after studying the modified project.

Now Dennis Korabiak is giving an overview of the project. Notes that there are 29,000 parking spaces in the downtown area.

So far, two commenters recommend not certifying the EIR, Eloy Wouters on the grounds that parking and traffic analyses are flawed, another because of fiscal responsibility concerns. A member of S/HNPA recommends the creation of a citizen oversight committee, similar to what was done with the arena. Another commenter recommends the 237/Zanker site as an alternative for the ballpark.

The lawyer from Stand for San Jose asserts that the traffic impact analysis for the weeknight 6-7 PM makes no conclusions and does not properly identify mitigation measures. Essentially this is a question of whether or not the SEIR properly states all of the impacts. Cites a couple of lawsuits in LA and Oakland.

A member of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association is concerned about traffic along CA-87′ though he also says that the ballpark would be a huge economic impact for downtown and San Jose. He wants VTA to make a commitment to provide improved services in the area, based on the success of transit usage in SF.

Michael Mulcahy (Baseball San Jose, friend of the Wolffs) is giving his sales pitch.

Another commenter criticizes the large environmental impact, while the last commenter critiques the traffic study.

Dennis Korabiak summarizes, notes that the project will require a vote due to the land contribution. Council decision to place project on the ballot would occur in June. Commissioner Zito asks if the various mitigations that will be needed have been disclosed. Korabiak replies yes. Commissioner Kamkar asks if the A’s will be paying for the police and traffic enforcement. Answer is that it will have to be negotiated by the A’s and City, with recommendations provided by the Good Neighbor Committee.

Public hearing closed. Now the rest of the planning commission has questions.

PG&E – What happens? No intention to acquire and relocate the substation.

Staff clarifies that the project is not in the “fair analysis” realm, which is often used to create legal challenges for an EIR. I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this right, but it may be because no major new impacts have been identified, compared to the old EIR. If true, that’s huge. Staff also says that regardless of a day or night game situation, there will be enough parking throughout downtown – though I have to say this is a flawed argument given the broad and one-sided definition of what downtown is.

8:33 PM – Motion to certify by Zito. Makes a statement to clarify that certifying the EIR is not about being for or against the project, it’s about whether or not the document itself is complete. Commissioner Jensen seconds. Commissioner Platten will not support the motion but considers it close, thinks there may be a lawsuit. Commissioner Klein thinks all of this could have been done with an amendment instead if a SEIR.

8:38 PM – Vote taken. Motion passes 4-1 with two commissioners absent. See ya in June.