03.25.11
by

KTRB broadcast deal in jeopardy

Apparently, playing hardball extends to the board room when you’re the A’s. They started the offseason haggling with Hisashi Iwakuma, now they end it haggling over a radio station. BANG’s Joe Stiglich reports tonight that the A’s and Comerica Bank are still duking it out over the final price to buy KTRB. The bank, which owns the station as part of bankruptcy and receivership proceedings, may be pulling A’s broadcasts off the air as a negotiating tactic.

According to the source, the receiver is looking for a higher bid than the A’s are willing to offer, and might be threatening to pull games off the air as leverage.

But it’s also possible that one of the sides budges and a compromise is struck to continue airing games before next Friday’s opener.

I was afraid that this would hold up the sale. Lew Wolff and Ken Pries have a week to prevent this from being a disaster. Do the right thing. Git er done.

03.25.11
by

MLB may change debt rule

At the end of last season I wrote about how MLB’s lightly-enforced debt rule might impact the A’s in the future. Now that the Mets have been practically sunk by the Madoff scandal and the Dodgers handcuffed by the McCourts’ divorce proceedings, Bud Selig may be looking to actually monitor the situation more closely and even act on violations.

The NY Post kicked off today’s news by indicating that a change to the existing debt rule may be in order. The article cites the now obsolete 60:40 rule, which was mothballed in favor of a multiplier-based system in which debt couldn’t be more than 10x operating income, or 15x if a new stadium were in operation. The kicker is that MLB is looking to include holding company debt in the calculation, which has potentially enormous implications. For ownership groups that were heavily leveraged to buy TV networks and radio stations, enforcement could have crippling effects on how much they can spend in the future, whether it’s on players or anything else. MLBPA may be pushing in favor of such a plan since it would provide a more honest assessment of each club’s financial stability and risk.

A source who represents players said, “I think it [a rule change] is positive,” even if it could have a negative impact on salaries.

That kind of agreement is nowhere to be found among the NFL, NBA and their unions. Craig Calcaterra has a short take on the rule change as well.

Where I’m not clear on the impact is whether or not additional teams and their debt in other sports is applicable. After all, Tom Hicks overreached to buy Liverpool F.C. and lost both the soccer team and the Texas Rangers because of it. While that’s clearly an outlier case, crazier things have happened. Ask Fred Wilpon, John Moores, or Frank McCourt.

The upshot of this is that while the A’s appear to be clean at the moment, things will get a more stringent in the next CBA and with the building of a new ballpark. MLB will look at any stadium deal and the A’s ability to make it work very, very closely. And while Selig may be supporting his friends Wilpon and McCourt right now, it wouldn’t surprise me for Selig to make an example out of one of them in the future, and to use the A’s or Rays as an example of how to properly run a lower-revenue franchise.

To further explain this, let’s take a look at operating income for the A’s as reported by Forbes for the last three seasons:

  • 2009 – $26 million
  • 2010 – $22 million
  • 2011 – $23 million

The average of those is $23.7 million. With a 10x multiplier, the A’s debt ceiling is $236.7 million. They’re nowhere near that point right now. Once they add a ballpark, that number will shoot up considerably. The ceiling will be $355 million, though that’s not enough to fully cover construction costs (and outstanding debt). The stadium cost number may go down by MLB’s definition if more corporates are locked in early and long term, I suppose that’s at the league’s discretion. Just as important, the debt number will be as high or perhaps even higher than the franchise value. Whether the debt rule stays the same, just with greater enforcement, or evolves to include holding companies, it’ll be interesting to see how individual teams respond in terms of fiscal restraint. That a debt rule change is on the table would also reinforce the idea that the A’s stadium resolution may not come until after CBA talks are complete. Will that happen before or after the season ends? We’ll find out soon enough.

03.25.11
by

Interesting Oakland news 3/25/11

The following nuggets were too big to relegate to the end of the last post, so they’re getting their own.

Former Oakland fire chief and San Diego city manager P. Lamont Ewell was named Interim Oakland City Administrator. That interim tag means five months, as Ewell was brought in to take care of the budget. Ewell also had a stint as Oakland’s assistant city manager. Dan Lindheim, who was placed in the City Administrator role by former mayor Ron Dellums, will stay on to handle various contract negotiations, including a Victory Court ballpark if it comes to fruition. This comes over two years after Robert Bobb was brought in as a consultant to clean up the budget mess left by his one-time successor, Deborah Edgerly. Bobb was offered the permanent position and declined it to take the helm of Detroit Public Schools. I’m not sure why Oakland’s had to bring in two people to do effectively one job twice in the last four years, but that’s gotta stop. Surely there’s someone out there who’s qualified and actually wants the Oakland City Administrator job.

Oakland is in the bidding for a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory campus. Among the locations being considered are the Oak-to-Ninth site which we’d covered here a while back, the area across the Nimitz from the Coliseum, where the Zhone Technologies building now sits, and the Kaiser Center (the office towers, not the arena). The Trib’s Cecily Burt reports:

Oakland has stiff competition. The cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Dublin, Richmond and Walnut Creek have all responded to university’s request for proposals. And UC could very well decided to scrap them all and build the second campus on land it already owns in Richmond. The university is expected to announce the finalists by mid-April, and could make the final choice in June at the earliest.

Nevertheless, Oakland’s putting out several potentially feasible sites. One of the unique wishlist items is space for a 3,000-foot long building. That would seem to rule out O29 since the length of the entire site is barely more than 3,000 feet and would require filling in the bay in a spot. However, this is a government project we’re talking about, so the environmental process could have exemptions or waivers to help it along. Other wishlist items include a desire for minimal environmental cleanup, which may be why LBL is looking beyond the brownfield albeit UC-owned Richmond Field Station.

Landing this project would be a huge win and would more than offset last year’s loss of Clorox’s research pool to Pleasanton. If Oakland doesn’t win the bid, it’ll lose jobs associated with the LBL-run National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is located near the Kaiser Center. At least 800 employees would move into the new second campus by December 2015.

How any of this fits with the ballpark is anyone’s guess, since there’s no clear cut favorite. Berkeleyside has more info on what LBL is aiming to build. The RFQ and clarifying Q&A can be found here. An internationally renowned research facility near either the Coliseum or Victory Court is bound to create some kind of halo effect, making surrounding land attractive for peripheral development. Then again, it could also hike up land values in what could be a very speculative market. Either way there’s huge potential. May the best bid win. Going back to the quoted paragraph – a decision could be made in June. Can you imagine a big, bureaucratic government agency (DoE) acting more swiftly and decisively than Major League Baseball? Say it ain’t so, Bud.

03.24.11
by

News for 3/24/11

Quick housekeeping note: If you were not aware, this blog is a self-hosted WordPress site. Ever since I moved to this platform in November 2009 after years with Blogger, I have been astonished at the rapid pace of third party development for WordPress. One feature came out today in the form of a server-side plugin called Onswipe, which can automatically reformat any WordPress site into an iPad/touch-friendly format. If you’ve used iPad apps such as Flipboard, Pulse, and Zite, you’ll feel right at home. Here’s a screenshot:

If you have an iPad, your browser (Safari) will show this version of the site automatically. I’m going to leave it up for now, but if any iPad users would prefer to go back to the original version of the site with the sidebars, I’ll heed your words. No other browsers or platforms should be affected. If you are, let me know in the comments. I’ve experimented with a mobile version of the site, but I’ve chosen not to launch it because nobody’s asked for it, so I didn’t want to penalize readers who are happy with the full site on their smartphones, etc.

Now the news:

Evan Weiner has a good overview of how the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986 impacted the ways stadiums and arenas could be financed.

Jorge Leon was interviewed by Oakland North, a three minute clip in which he manages to dismiss economic viability concerns in Oakland as easily as he does train safety.

Press Democrat columnist Robert Rubino bashes the Giants in consecutive weeks – first the fans, then the team over T-rights.

Bleacher Report’s Brandon McClintock seems to buying into a Wolff conspiracy theory – nevermind the millions spent in Fremont, the lack of interest or cooperation during the Brown administration, or the Coliseum Authority’s lack of willingness to explore a ballpark plus development at the Malibu/HomeBase site.

As for the fate of redevelopment? The legislature is steeling themselves for the fight over tax extensions. Redevelopment will have to wait.

Added 2:27 PM – Speaking of trains, the Harbor Drive Bridge, a pedestrian/bike span that goes over heavily used heavy and light rail tracks near PETCO Park in San Diego, has finally opened. It’s lovely and it only cost $12.8 million $26.8 million to construct. A Victory Court-to-Jack London Square bridge shouldn’t cost as much. It will probably cost many millions of dollars to build, and yes, it absolutely is necessary.

Picture from San Diego Union Tribune / CCDC

03.23.11
by

2011 Forbes valuations out, A’s up 4%

It’s late March, and you know what that means: the new Forbes MLB franchise valuations are out. With a few notable exceptions due to debt problems (Mets, Dodgers), things in baseball are going quite swimmingly. The A’s are back above the $300 million mark with a $307 million valuation, up 4% from 2010. The team remains second-to-last among all MLB franchises, eclipsing only the Pirates. Forbes also listed at $23.2 million, which is probably due entirely to revenue sharing.

To understand where the A’s may be headed, I took five teams and looked a little deeper at how their valuations were constituted. The teams are the A’s, Giants (natch), Red Sox (Giants’ aspirations), Rockies and Padres (aspirational western mid-markets for the A’s). The numbers are quite interesting.

First off, it’s important to note Forbes’ explanations for some of the components of each valuation. “Sport” is described as attributable to revenue shared among all teams. You’ll see there’s an inverse relationship between the bigger revenue teams and this number. If a team is highly dependent on revenue sharing, this number will be higher. “Market” seems self-explanatory, though for the two Bay Area teams it’s interesting that according to Forbes they share the same market, which based on its size (4,274,000) is probably defined as the SF-Oakland-Fremont MSA. That leaves out both the South Bay and all of the North Bay save for Marin County. Not clear on what impact this has, so I’ve reached out to Forbes editor Kurt Badenhausen for a clarification. Here’s his response:

We publish the population and revenue per fan numbers based on the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA. We use the official MSA designations for all those numbers. Market size plays a role in the value of teams in terms of how they drive revenues, but a bad stadium situation in a big market is still not going to help a team out.

“Stadium” is fairly straightforward, though it should be pointed out that just because you build a $500 million dollar stadium you’re not going to see a similar appreciation in your franchise valuation. That makes “Stadium” more a function of gate revenue and attendance, areas where the A’s and Padres fall behind while the Giants and Red Sox excel. “Brand Management” must be related to marketing efforts – or in the case of the A’s, a lack thereof.

Debt/value is a tricky beast, both in how it’s defined and how MLB’s debt rules get enforced. It always includes stadium debt, and should the A’s get their new ballpark in the next few years that number will jump up significantly from its 29% position, which has hovered there for several years. Since it’s possible that some of that debt may come in the form of a loan from MLB, it will be extremely important for Wolff/Fisher to ensure that revenue streams are locked in to service that debt (and then some) for the foreseeable future.

Surely, this annual release by Forbes will be followed up by a denial of the veracity of the figures by Commissioner Bud Selig. Despite this, it’s telling that franchise sales tend to use the Forbes figures as a baseline at the very least, leading me to believe that they’re far more accurate than Selig, who is loathe to provide any real financial data from MLB, is willing to let on.

03.22.11
by

Santa Clara gives 49ers $4 million for stadium project

It’s all starting to get a little unseemly at this point.

The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg and Lisa Fernandez report that the City Santa Clara, in its haste to lock in the 49ers stadium deal, gave the team $4 million for the project. That’s a huge turnaround from what was intended a few weeks ago: the team would advance the City money to kick off the work. Back in February I wrote this as part of the Redevapocalypse post:

$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.

That renewed scrutiny amounted to two hours to review the new contract (PDF). There are some interesting nuggets in the document:

  • The organization the 49ers have set up to take care of their side of the agreement is Forty Niners Stadium, LLC, shortened to Stadco throughout.
  • The money is getting shifted around due to a bunch of predevelopment work being done by Stadco for the stadium project.
  • An additional $1.6 million was transferred from the City to the Agency (a.k.a Stadium Authority per the agreement) to take care of development fees.
  • Up to $40 million can be spent by Stadco with the promise that it will be covered by the Agency. Essentially this is a loan or advance per the terms. Interest is 8.5%.
  • The work described is your garden variety utilities relocation and street reconfiguration stuff, as described in the final stadium project description.

Is it as bad as the Irwindale giveaway? No, because the 49ers – I mean Stadco – are actually doing work. Al Davis didn’t promise to do anything for Irwindale. Still, it looks really, really bad and really, really rushed to go about things this way. If the stadium never proceeds past this initial stage, the City will have spent a lot of money on infrastructure changes that will not be helpful for any replacement project.

03.21.11
by

Redevelopment survives the weekend

Late Thursday I tweeted that after a number of budget-related bills were passed, the Assembly didn’t get around to dealing with SB 77. Stuck at a 53-23 vote with only one Republican holdout needed, the bill would have to wait until Monday.

Redevelopment got a three day reprieve because the California Republican Party was holding its annual convention in Sacramento, just blocks from the Capitol building. Though I choose not to pay much attention to party politics, it was clear from the various updates coming out of the CRP bash that the whole affair seemed a bit too Lord of the Flies to get anything substantive out of it. Republicans aren’t just worried about unity, they’re wondering if they’re relevant in the state.

The fate of redevelopment may be a hot-button issue, but it pales in comparison to Governor Brown’s interest in extending tax hikes. Brown’s budget proposal is predicated on half cuts, half taxes, which on the surface looks fair. It’s the details of it that have gotten people upset, which is not surprising. The Republicans, who have rallied hard for more cuts and an end to that tax extension, simply don’t have the numbers to do anything other than be a spoiler in Brown’s plans. That’s where redevelopment comes in. Should SB 77 not pass, it would throw a monkey wrench into the budget proposal, inevitably delaying the final budget while the Democrats look for other places to bridge the gap.

Redevelopment as a tool is broadly supported and reviled by people in both parties, so it’s not as though there were some ideological divide there. The delay in getting the budget framework passed (it was supposed to happen 10 days ago) has allowed cities to come up with an alternative proposal that may make its way through the legislature in short order. The proposal, which has not yet been introduced in bill form, allows for redevelopment agencies throughout the stake to remain intact while pledging more tax increment as passthroughs to local schools. The League of California Cities has the outline:

  • Local redevelopment agencies can voluntarily suspend their housing set-aside for FY 2011-12. An equivalent amount of funds must then be contributed to local school districts in project areas.

    • In exchange for this contribution of funds for FY 2011-12 to local schools, the agency will be allowed to extend the project area’s life by TWO YEARS.

  • In addition, or alternatively, redevelopment agencies could voluntarily contribute up to 10 percent of their non-housing tax increment revenue stream to local school districts each year for 10 years, beginning in FY 2011-12.

    • The tax increment revenue stream they could contribute would be calculated as a percentage of the gross tax increment minus the existing pass-through payments to local taxing entities.
    • For each percentage of tax increment paid to schools, an additional year could be added to the project area life, up to a maximum of 10 years. For example, if five percent of tax increment was dedicated to schools, the project area life could be extended for five years.

    The gist of this is that cities would be trading affordable housing funds for school funds. This is driven by several people in some of the largest cities in the state who believe that, at least in their jurisdictions, there is enough affordable housing already and that more would only harm local and state governments more from a revenue-and-cost standpoint. What I don’t get is the use of the word “voluntarily.” How exactly would the budget shortfall be bridged by some shaky pledges from the cities? The League positions this proposal as the “lawsuit free” solution, as it would hold up Prop 22 and keep cities from having bondholders pull the trigger on lawsuits against the state.

    It’s unclear who would write and sponsor this redevelopment bill, since Brown has been using his muscle to get the Democrats in line and moving forward. It all may be moot anyway, since SB 77 will get called for a vote again sometime in the near future. We’ll find out soon enough.

    03.17.11
    by

    April 3rd A’s – Japanese Relief Effort

    Press release from the A’s today:

    OAKLAND, CALIF. — In their ongoing efforts to support victims of last week’s Japanese earthquake disaster, the Oakland A’s announced today that the team will donate $1 for every ticket sold to their Sunday, April 3 game against the Seattle Mariners at the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum to the Red Cross for their relief efforts in Japan. In addition, the A’s have established a new web site, www.oaklandathletics.com/japan, which will allow fans to make tax-deductible donations to the A’s Community Fund, with 100 percent of those proceeds-along with money raised from the April 3 game — given to the Red Cross.

    The benefit game, which will showcase Japan’s two greatest modern-day players in Oakland’s Hideki Matsui and Seattle’s Ichiro Suzuki, is also Japanese Heritage Day at the Coliseum, featuring pre-game ceremonies and entertainment. Yet most importantly, the game will feature many fund-raising components to support the Japanese relief efforts.

    Beyond the $1 per ticket commitment by the A’s organization, corporate sponsors for Japanese Heritage Day, including title sponsor Capcom and presenting sponsors NetSuite and Futjisu, will also contribute thousands of dollars to the cause. Besides purchasing a game ticket, fans will be encouraged to donate in the following ways:

    • CONTRIBUTE ON-LINE-Make a personal donation on line to the A’s Community Fund by going to www.oaklandathletics.com/japan. All proceeds will go to the Red Cross.

    • A SILENT AUCTION – Before and during the April 3 game, the A’s will conduct a silent auction of signed and game-used baseball equipment by Oakland players, with 100 percent of the proceeds raised going to the relief efforts.

    • MATSUI AUTOGRAPHED PHOTOS – A limited supply of personally-signed 8×10 color photos of Matsui will also be sold for $50 each.

    • FRAMED AUTOGRAPHED GAME JERSEYS – Personally-signed game jerseys worn by Japanese baseball icons Hideki Matsui and Ichiro Suzuki on 2011 Opening Night will be added to the Silent Auction on April 3.

    As part of Japanese Heritage Day, 10,000 fans will be given complimentary Hideki Matsui t-shirts, presented by Super Street Fighter IV 3D Edition. Pre-game festivities will include an on-field ceremony and relief-effort check presentation featuring Matsui, the San Francisco Japanese Consul-General Hiroshi Inomata, and Japanese Heritage Day sponsors.

    In addition, Taiko drummers will entertain fans before first pitch. For more information regarding Japanese Heritage Day and the Japanese relief efforts, go to the A’s newly-created web site, www.oaklandathletics.com/japan.

    Give by enjoying an A’s game that Sunday. Then give again (if you can) via one of the methods above. A’s games are a great deal, and on April 3 you’ll be there for a great cause.

    03.16.11
    by

    Deal struck between San Jose and Santa Clara County

    It took until the very last minute, but Santa Clara County pulled back from its lawsuit against San Jose when the two parties struck a payments and land deal. As reported by the Merc’s Karen de Sá and John Woolfork, the key is the City relinquishing its old City Hall north of downtown to the County. A smallish, dated postwar relic, the old City Hall could work fine as additional office space for the County. There are also suggestions that the County could turn the land around to a housing developer, which isn’t exactly promising given the land’s proximity to San Jose’s Main Jail. The property is right next to the Civic Center light rail station, which might make it attractive (It’s not really the Civic Center anymore – shouldn’t the station be renamed?). Talks about the transfer have been happening pretty much since the new City Hall opened. It’s a good deal in one sense for the County, as the corten-steel Government Center is next door so consolidation of the bureaucrats can begin in earnest. Or, if the hint in the document is correct, demolition can begin in earnest.

    Additionally, the City would pay the County $21.5 million by March 30 and $5 million by May 15. Hopefully that money can address county services that would otherwise face cuts. Part of that money will come from 50% of the proceeds from the North San Pedro (Brandenburg) sale. Five payments of $4.756 million each (plus interest) will be due by the end of each of the 2014-18 fiscal years.

    The upshot is that the San Jose Diridon Development Authority will remain intact, depending on the endgame of RDAs. Existing tax increment passthroughs would continue to be applicable at Diridon. Sometimes it takes a crisis to bring about results.

    03.16.11
    by

    SB 77 (End to redevelopment) in session

    As I type this I am watching the State Assembly stream the debate over SB 77, a bill that would ostensibly end redevelopment as we know going forward. Sponsors and critics are speaking now, including numerous Democrats who are voting for the bill despite having reservations over its effect on the future availability of affordable housing. Republicans seem to be voting no. Will it go party-line or will some of the Republicans cross over? Introductory text of the bill reads as follows:

    (1) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects ofblight, as defined. Existing law provides that an action may be brought to review the validity of the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan by an agency, to review the validity of agency findings or determinations, and other agency actions.
    This bill would revise the provisions of law authorizing an action to be brought against the agency to determine or review the validity of specified agency actions.

    (2) Existing law also requires that if an agency ceases to function, any surplus funds existing after payment of all obligations and indebtedness vest in the community.
    The bill would repeal this provision. The bill would suspend various agency activities and prohibit agencies from incurring
    indebtedness commencing on the effective date of this act. Effective July 1, 2011, the bill would dissolve all redevelopment agencies and community development agencies in existence and designate successor agencies, as defined, as successor entities. The bill would impose various requirements on the successor agencies and subject successor agency actions to the review of oversight boards, which the bill would establish.
    The bill would require county auditor-controllers to conduct an agreed-upon procedures audit of each former redevelopment agency by October 1, 2011. The bill would require the county auditor-controller to determine the amount of property taxes that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency if the agencies had not been dissolved and deposit this amount in a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund in the county. Revenues in the trust fund would be allocated to various taxing entities in the county and to cover specified expenses of the former agency. The sum of $1,700,000,000 of these moneys would be allocated to the various counties for deposit in a Public Health and Safety Fund, which would be used to reimburse the state for health and trial court services in the county. The bill would authorize the county to elect not to administer this fund, in which case the Director of Finance would be required to designate a different entity to administer this fund. Under the bill, if the county elects not to dminister the fund, it would not receive moneys remaining in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, which would otherwise be distributed to taxing entities in the county. The bill would also require, for the 2012-13 fiscal year and each subsequent fiscal year in which funds are available, each county auditor-controller to allocate to various educational entities a specified amount. By imposing additional duties upon local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.

    (3) Under the California Constitution, the Legislature is prohibited, except by a 2/3 vote, from changing the pro rata shares in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated among local agencies in a county.
    Because this measure would provide property tax revenues that would otherwise be received by enterprise special districts from
    former redevelopment tax increment allotments instead be received by the respective county, and may result in property tax moneys in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund not being allocated to the county if it declines to administer the Public Health and Safety Fund, the bill would constitute a change in the pro rata share of property tax allocations in that county and require the passage of the bill by a 2/3 vote.

    (4) The bill would appropriate $500,000 to the Department of Finance from the General Fund for administrative costs associated
    with the bill.

    (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
    This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

    (6) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

    More as the vote is taken. Passage requires a two-thirds approval.

    4:10 PM – District 16 (Oakland) Councilman Sandré R. Swanson is speaking in favor of the bill and will apparently vote yes. The Dems are talking about holding Governor Brown to a promise of setting up whatever the proper successor to RDAs is.

    4:14 PM – Closing statements happening now.

    4:18 PM – 50-21 Aye, 8 abstentions. They are four short of the necessary absolute two-thirds thanks to the abstentions, putting the bill on “call” or hold. Bill may come back after the other three budget bills are addressed.

    5:02 PM – Call lifted on SB 77. One additional No vote, 50-22. Can no one else be whipped into voting for this? Apparently not, bill placed on call again.

    5:54 PM – Still don’t have the additional four votes. Republicans are calling for a caucus.

    6:25 PM – The Assembly is now taking up a few Assembly bills. Looks like AB 77 will have to wait until the end of the night, whenever that is.

    6:57 PM – Call lifted. Vote is now 53 AYE, 23 NO. 3 holdouts remain. All four Assembly members who represent ballpark areas (Wieckowski – Fremont, Beall/Campos – San Jose, Swanson – Oakland) have voted to approve.

    7:09 PM – Still can’t get that last vote, bill moved to call yet again. Tally remains 53-23.

    9:25 PM – Last motion to lift call and vote. No 54th vote. Tally remains 53-23. Assembly adjourns for the night, will reconvene tomorrow at 11 AM. (Thanks for interfering with my NCAA tourney quality time, pols.)

    Note: Let’s keep the discussion to redevelopment and the impact of it going away.