I had been working on a long post comparing the pros and cons of the various new collective bargaining agreements, but after yesterday’s events involving the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the New Orleans Hornets/Los Angeles Lakers, I realized that it’s pointless. Take a look at the chart below, and comment away if you feel like it.
Mark Purdy’s newest column revisits a fuzzy period when the halcyon days of the Haas era were ending, and East Bay looked to bring the Raiders back to Oakland.
Reinsdorf’s statement about Oakland, meanwhile, outlines a chapter of the A’s stadium pursuit that many East Bay citizens either forget or refuse to acknowledge. The chapter dates to 1994, not long after the Haas family sold the team to Steve Schott and Ken Hofmann. The two men had big plans for remodeling the Coliseum into a fine baseball-only structure. They requested a meeting with the Coliseum commission.
“Here’s what we’d like to do,” Schott told the commission, outlining his remodeling ideas.
“That’s all very nice,” the commission replied, more or less. “But we have some news. The Raiders want to come back to Oakland, and we’ve got a financing plan to make it happen that will include building a new center field addition. You can’t fight this, because the important people in Oakland want it to happen and they’ll make it difficult on you if you try to get in the way.”
Schott and Hofmann acquiesced. From that moment forward, the A’s long-term future in Oakland was probably doomed. Years later, after Wolff and partner John Fisher bought the team, Wolff did assemble a new ballpark proposal near the Coliseum site. His plan involved mixed-use redevelopment and required Oakland’s assistance to acquire the necessary land. The project went nowhere when the city did not or could not cooperate. Wolff then looked south to Fremont and spent years on another failed plan before finally settling on San Jose as his last, not first, resort.
15-17 years doesn’t seem like that long ago. I have trouble remembering all of the details. Purdy’s account sounds roughly correct, though I’m not certain about how all of the dates fit together. There was a point after Schott’s proposal when the old Coliseum Commission came to an end in a political brouhaha, to be replaced by the Coliseum Authority (see “A Cup of Joe with the Georges” for George Vukasin Sr.’s take).
Fast-forward to last year, when the Coliseum Authority worked with the Raiders again on plans to redevelop the entire Coliseum area by constructing a new football stadium to replace the to-be-demolished old Coliseum. A proposal by Wolff when he worked for Schott and Hofmann went nowhere. I’m sure MLB cares not one whit about the apparent favorable treatment the Raiders repeatedly received over the A’s. It won’t affect their decision making at all. Water under the bridge, right?
The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the Miami Marlins ballpark deal (better late than never?). Now Field of Schemes has dug into the matter further, revealing that the investigation may be much broader than a look into how bonds were secured and pay-to-play. In fact, a mention of last year’s Deadspin exposé of have-not teams may end up being a convenient piece of evidence in the suit. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
Now, there are some who will try to conflate what was done in Miami with what could happen with the A’s in San Jose. That would be terribly unfair. Not only has the City been clear about the land deal terms, it has at every milestone reinforced the notion that the final stadium deal will be approved (or not) by a public referendum. City has also published what its negotiating principles are, as shown in the resolution passed in September 2010.
WHEREAS, the Council desires to reaffirm the following previously-approved Negotiating Principles that will guide the City’s efforts in bringing a Major League Baseball stadium to San Jose:
1. No new taxes are imposed to fund ballpark-related expenditures.
2. The City must determine that the ballpark development will generate a significant economic benefit to the City and have a positive impact on City General Fund revenues.
3. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse any costs associated with construction of the ballpark or construction of any on-site infrastructure or improvements needed for the ballpark.
4. No public funds of any kind are spent to finance or reimburse any ballpark operational or maintenance costs related to activities conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team that uses the ballpark either at the ballpark or in the streets surrounding the ballpark.
5. No public funds shall be spent to finance or reimburse the cost of any traffic control, street cleanup, emergency or security services within the ballpark site or within the streets surrounding the ballpark that are related to activities at the ballpark conducted by or under the authority of the baseball team.
6. If the property is leased for a ballpark, the baseball team must be willing, at the end of the term of the lease, either to purchase the property at fair market value or to do one of the following things at the City’s option and at no cost to the City or the Redevelopment Agency:
a. Transfer ownership of the improvements to the City or Redevelopment Agency; or
b. Demolish the improvements and clear the site to make way for other development.7. The entity that builds or operates the ballpark must be willing, if the City deems it appropriate, to make the ballpark available to the City during baseball’s offseason for up to 10 days per year for community-related events, at no rental charge to the City.
8. The name of the baseball team must include San Jose.
Has anything changed? Nope. The important thing is that City realizes that and remains steadfast, and that Lew Wolff knows it. He’s been espousing a privately financed stadium since he assumed ownership. If he were to change his stance now or anytime in the near future, you know what will happen? He and Mayor Reed will lose whatever public support they had. It’s that simple. I like to think that in California, we’ve learned over the last decade not to be taken when it comes to stadium deals. Cisco Field will, eventually, be a test and a testament of that experience and wisdom. I believe we’ll do it right and set an example for the rest of the country and the next generation of city leaders and team owners to follow.
JMA Ventures, the 49ers-affiliated company that was set to buy Great America from them park operator Cedar Fair, is not going through with the purchase after all. That means that the park will stay a Cedar Fair property, which seems to be just fine with all concerned parties. In addition, Cedar Fair and the 49ers appear to have come up with an agreement to keep both entities happy for the foreseeable future. From Cedar Fair’s press release:
The Company also announced that it has reached a long-term agreement with the San Francisco 49ers related to the construction of the stadium and parking for NFL and other stadium-related events for the life of the new stadium. The agreement is still subject to the execution of a definitive agreement and the approval of the Stadium Authority and related approvals from the City of Santa Clara.
It’s yet another one of those small details that needs to be worked out for the Santa Clara stadium to move forward. I’m just guessing here, but it appears that prior to the start of the lawsuit which triggered all of this, Cedar Fair laid down its cards and said, “You can shut us up if you buy the park.” The 49ers, not wanting another obstacle, acceded to the demand and put together its bid. After both parties sat down to figure everything out, the 49ers realized it wasn’t their core competency and looked for another way to make it work. Cedar Fair then dictated terms (undisclosed), the 49ers agreed after some haggling, and the two parties signed on the line which is dotted. Now I’m curious to see what new Great America-specific terms are in the 49ers stadium lease, not that there aren’t enough terms to hash out.
Bulls/White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf has a unique bit of experience under his belt: he’s overseen the construction of a publicly-financed stadium (New Comiskey Park/US Cellular Field) and a privately-financed arena (United Center). He once played the I’ll-move-the-team-to-Tampa card with the White Sox and turned it into the birth of the new era of ballparks. He also has a reputation as a shrewd negotiator and plain talker. So I suppose it was not all that surprising that, when Susan Slusser and John Shea caught up with Reinsdorf at the Winter Meetings this week, he had a few choice words about the A’s situation.
Major-league owners can vote to overturn territorial rights, and recent signs point to a potential vote on the issue at the owners’ January meetings. The A’s will have at least one prominent backer in White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, a longtime friend of A’s owner Lew Wolff.
“I’m totally supportive of Lew getting a new ballpark and going to San Jose,” Reinsdorf said. “He needs to be there. It has to come to a head soon.
“Certainly, (the Coliseum is) past its time. In my opinion, Oakland’s past its time, too. Oakland’s had plenty of opportunity to build a stadium and hasn’t gotten it done.”
Within MLB, it’s been well known that Reinsdorf backs his buddy Lew Wolff, along with Commissioner Bud Selig. As a 30-year tenured owner and a member of MLB’s Executive Committee, he’s been known to have nearly as much sway as Selig. When it comes to rallying votes and gaining consensus, Selig and Reinsdorf should be able to pass just about anything, including a resolution to the A’s-Giants territorial rights battle. Will that actually happen? It sure looks that way, based on how Billy Beane’s practically gushing about it.
As for Reinsdorf’s quip about Oakland, that was just mean and unnecessary. Then again, this is the man who sided with Jerry Krause over Michael Jordan.
The NHL has been talking about realignment for some time now. The move of the Atlanta franchise to Winnipeg truly got the ball rolling this year, though there seemed to be a consensus that the changes would be minor, such as moving Detroit or Columbus from the Western to the Eastern Conference. Instead, the NHL is choosing to scrap its division and go with four regional conferences. Motivated by a chance to reduce travel costs, schedule formatting would be as follows:
Here’s what we have now:
And starting next year:
Personally I would’ve preferred three conferences of ten teams each, but this should do. I hope this leads to seeding without regard to region/conference, even if it means five teams qualify out of one conference while only two or three come out of another conference.
AP’s Janie McCauley has the news of a lawsuit filed by Giants astroturf group Stand for San Jose against the City of San Jose. The group alleges that City “abused their powers and ran roughshod over their legal duties, including their duties to protect the public’s right to vote and to comply with laws designed to protect the environment, prior to committing to sell public lands for a Ballpark Project.”
I snipped a piece of the City’s municipal code for occasions like this:
4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility
The city of San José may participate in the building of a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the city of San José approving such expenditure.A “sports facility” for the purpose of this chapter is to be any structure designed to seat more than five thousand people at any one time for the purpose of viewing a sporting or recreational event.
“Tax dollars” for the purposes of this chapter include, without limitation, any commitment to fund wholly or in part said facility with general fund monies, redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by city property, taxing authority or revenues.
Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the city from allowing the construction of a sports facility funded by private investment.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this chapter and application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
The phrase “participate in the building of a sports facility” has always been subject to interpretation. For some, it can mean the City bearing some of the direct construction cost of a stadium. It could mean contributing some or all of the land, especially if the land is sold or leased at below market rate. It seems that Stand for San Jose thinks that the City needed approval via a referendum before signing off on the land deal, even though it’s just an option at this point. The City has been consistent in that it will put the entire package – land deal and all – up for vote when all of the details are completed. By going in Stand for San Jose’s route, virtually every step of the process would have to approved by a public vote every time. The idea sounds like a recipe for gridlock, especially when you consider that the EIR process started in 2005, four years before Stand for San Jose was hatched by the San Jose Giants. All this time, a year after EIR certification, and that’s when you decide to file a lawsuit?
Of course, the Giants (both SF and SJ) could have chosen to stay quiet for years because they were lobbying the City for improvements to Municipal Stadium. Convenient then, that the timing of all of these political and legal actions would occur after the City provided redevelopment funds for Muni? Way to bite the hand that feeds you, Giants. Even more convenient, take a look at how a referendum is required for any venue with a capacity of 5,000 or more. Muni’s capacity? 4,200. Should Muni’s improvements have required a referendum too?
On the other hand, I think the A’s and City could reduce some of their exposure to these types of actions if the Diridon land deal was simply done at market value. Wolff Urban Development is buying the Hotel Sainte Claire at market value, why not the ballpark land? – is what people will argue. This 2005 SV/SJ Business Journal article hints at possible actions if City pushed for a discount. Then again, it’s likely that Stand for San Jose would simply sue based on the EIR, forget the land deal. Coincidentally, the positive budget deficit news reported yesterday (now down from $80 to $25 million) actually works against both Mayor Chuck Reed and Stand for San Jose, since resources won’t be so scarce in the near term.
I would’ve had more sympathy for the mini-Giants had their owners not chosen to sell out to the big paternal Giants to the north. Now it’s just one big corporate interest trying to push around another with the City in tow. We know that the Giants’ motive is to have the A’s leave the Bay Area altogether, or at least rot in the Coliseum for years to come. Thankfully, it appears that Bud Selig is getting off his duff and getting the Giants to the table. Then maybe, just maybe, all this B.S. posturing can stop. Or, as Christina Kahrl tweeted:
http://twitter.com/#!/ChristinaKahrl/status/142832962747113472
Two other observations – note how Stand for San Jose shared the news with the Associated Press instead of the local news outlets when they filed the lawsuit. Looks like someone else is figuring out how to work the national media as well. Also, I like how Stand for San Jose has no problem filing tons of paperwork with the City, yet can’t bother to post any of these filings or letters on their website. Come on astroturfers, if you’re gonna call for “transparency”, you should at least practice what you preach.
Congratulations are in order to the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara for lining up all of the necessary financing for their now-$1.02 billion Santa Clara stadium. The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg reports that a consortium of lenders including Bank of America, US Bank, and Goldman Sachs will be providing the bulk of the financing, $850 million. The rest will come from the NFL and the City’s redevelopment funds.
It all sounds promising, but forgive me for being skeptical about this:
Essentially, the two sides are betting that the stadium will create so much profit that they will be able to pay off the loans over about 25 years. If that money doesn’t materialize, the 49ers are on the hook to pay the difference in higher rent payments to the city.
I’d have to thoroughly read the terms of the 75-page agreement to know how iron-clad that is. A rough read right now shows that the way it’s set up, the City-run, quasi-governmental Stadium Authority will lease the stadium to “Stadco”, an entity created by the 49ers to manage the stadium. Stadco will then sublease the stadium to the team itself. I suppose the point of this is to provide some amount of insulation for both the City and 49ers. Here’s some relevant language from Section 8.6:
The recourse of any lender of any construction or permanent financing obtained by Stadco shall be limited so that no City, Agency or Stadium Authority funds, assets, or operating revenues or City enterprise funds will be used as collateral. For other sources of Stadco funds described in the Final Financing Plan that are not loans, Stadco shall provide to the Stadium Authority for its review and approval, evidence, reasonably satisfactory to the Stadium Authority, that such funds shall be available as of the Close of Escrow to pay Development Costs.
This seems to be good for the City from the standpoint of protecting it upfront, as Stadco is responsible for rounding up the financing. As long as the 49ers can meet their revenue projections to pay off the $60 million or so in debt service annually, plus other stadium costs. Of course, that’s been my question from the beginning. At this point I don’t think Santa Clara will be stuck in a position like Oakland/Alameda County or Hamilton County in Ohio, simply because the broader Valley economy should remain strong. Nevertheless, Section 19 covers a default situation by either Stadco or the Stadium Authority. If the 49ers can’t come up with the dough, it’ll be a sign that the team is in such financial straits that the team would descend into bankruptcy, and in that case the team would have to be sold and the courts will decide what to do next (see: Frank McCourt).
Now that the tryptophan has worn off, we’re starting to get some news again.
More as it comes.
When the San Jose Earthquakes announced their plans for a stadium near SJC, observers noted the capacity (15,000), shape (horseshoe), and the seeming lack of luxury suites. Now the team has remedied that last flaw, unveiling a package of luxury suites to be located on both the field level and the rim of the stadium.
The stadium’s original design had a very short first deck and a large second deck, which made it easy for the Quakes to add suites if the economy was friendly enough to do so. In going this route, some other premium seating will be displaced, but the 12 field suites alone should boost the team’s bottom line significantly.
View from behind a suite at field level
What may be more interesting is how the suites are being pitched to potential buyers. The suites have NanaWall-esque moving glass walls instead of a typical door-and-fixed window setup. It’s expected that a number of high school and college events will be held there, which is a smart move given the lack of modern facilities in the South Bay. Concerts are not in the sales brochure, which indicates how sensitive the Quakes are about noise and the venue’s potential as competition for HP Pavilion. Field level suites are $350,000 for a 5-year contract.
Suite seating arrangement. Note non-suite seats to the right.
You might remember how the Fremont ballpark concept would’ve had a level of suites only 10-15 rows from the field. It looks like that amenity will go to the soccer stadium instead, with the ballpark getting the traditional level of suites cantilevered over the lower deck.
Just as the ballpark may grow in capacity as a late game tweak, changes such as the addition of luxury suites can be made for the Quakes’ stadium. We can look forward to more such changes as these projects move from paper to concrete.
newballpark.org 