03.14.11
by

News for 3/14/11

Today’s hearing for Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose may set the stage for a proper settlement between the two parties over $62.9 million in redevelopment funds owed to the county. The Merc’s Karen de Sá has the details, including this bit from County Supervisor Dave Cortese, who has long been a ballpark backer:

“This is what we call a straight breach of contract, it’s not that much different than if somebody got behind on their car or house payments — you gotta settle up,” said board president Dave Cortese. “The difference is, this isn’t money for a car payment, this is money that needs to go toward all the services the county provides, everything from emergency rooms to a regional park service, libraries and courthouses. There’s no end to the hardship that would result in us being out of pocket $63 million.”

City Attorney Rick Doyle is among those who believe a deal can be reached by Wednesday, which is when the State Legislature is supposed to hear the new budget proposal.

Santa Clara is set to wrap up its work to protect RDA funds for the 49ers stadium project tomorrow.

San Diego is considering a Diridon-like transfer of 135 RDA-owned properties to the City.

Longtime NY Times baseball writer and anti-blog curmudgeon Murray Chass keeps up the weekly trickle of nationally-sourced articles pushing for the A’s to move south. This one follows a widely used AP piece last week. I sense a strategy in there… Chass’s column comes two years after a similar entry at his site, the difference this time being the appearance of Bill Neukom on the scene.

Jonah Keri’s new book about the Moneyball-style rise of the Tampa Bay Rays is out. The book is titled The Extra 2%: How Wall Street Strategies Took a Major League Baseball Team from Worst to First.

Added 3/15 1:00 AM – In Sunday’s edition of the Chronicle, Matier and Ross reported that Denver attorney Paul Jacobs was hired by Oakland to be its lead negotiator for the Victory Court project. The $455 per hour hiring, which wasn’t publicized immediately because it was done in closed session, is a big deal because Jacobs is prominent in the Western US for working on stadium deals. His biggest claims to fame are his role in putting together the resources that eventually created the Colorado Rockies, and the ballpark and land development deal around PETCO Park. As is often the case in the stadium game, Jacobs isn’t batting 1.000. More recently he worked on the aborted Pacific Commons project in Fremont and was retained by the City of Oceanside in its efforts to figure out a football stadium deal for the Chargers. One thing I’m curious about is whether or not the firm Barrett Sports Group was brought in. The last two links include mentions of Barrett Sports Group, the “other half” to Jacobs, with both hired as a package deal of sorts. Jacobs handles the real estate stuff, while BSG takes care of facility planning and financing. BSG counts A’s and Giants ownership as two of its many current or former private sector clients.

03.11.11
by

Days of Reckoning

Governor Jerry Brown’s self-imposed budget deadline has come and gone, though Brown has asked for more time to work out details with the legislature. That body is trying to line up a floor vote next week, and they can waive the advance requirement for a public vote if they can get the budget basics outlined. If a compromise can’t be reached in the Capitol, Brown has warned of an “all cuts” budget in which every state agency and employee group will be in an “every man for himself” mode. It’s hard to conceive, but not out of the realm of possibility. It’s too early to know what such an impasse would mean for redevelopment, and for the various stadium projects throughout the state.

Speaking of redevelopment, Santa Clara County’s lawsuit against the City of San Jose and SJRA will have a hearing on Monday. The immediate issue at hand is the County’s request for an injunction against the transfer of the Diridon land to SJDDA. It’s a move that could have a paralyzing effect on ballpark efforts in San Jose, at least if the state goes through with the elimination of redevelopment agencies. One thing to keep in mind is that unlike many other Bay Area counties, Santa Clara County has no redevelopment agency of its own. That makes the County unique in that advocacy for curtailing or eliminating redevelopment presents no potential conflict of interest. San Jose has tendency to throw its weight around, so you can see why the County might feel it has to resort to a legal action.

If redevelopment goes away, it wouldn’t only threaten San Jose. Oakland, Santa Clara, and at least two or all three of SoCal football concepts would both see their stadium projects vanish (San Diego, City of Industry for certain, Downtown LA unclear).

Under Brown’s proposal, redevelopment agency property would be sold and the proceeds divided among the cities, counties, school districts and other local entities, finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said, so moves to protect the assets – transferring parking lots, buildings and other properties to a city, for example – could limit the amount those other local government bodies get if lawmakers eliminate redevelopment agencies.

Assuming that whatever lawsuits stem from the seizures get resolved, that would leave the various cities to work out deals where agreements and contracts already exist. That would include the Coliseum in Oakland and the Airport West property in San Jose.

In other news:

  • Chuck Greenberg is resigning from his CEO post with the Texas Rangers today, after only 8 months on the job. A shocker, and the background article is a worthwhile read.
  • The A’s will raise funds for victims of the Sendai earthquake and tsunami on April 3, a game against the Mariners. The day will also be called Japanese Heritage Day.
  • NFLPA appears to be ready to decertify itself, a move that would preempt a lockout. It would also set off a series of lawsuits. The two sides are said to be some $600-700 million apart n terms of sharing revenue, with the league offering 43% of the full pie ($9 Billion) and the players wanting 50%. By going down this path, both sides are setting a highly contentious precedent that could well be followed by the NBA this summer, MLB not so much. Update 1:19 PM – The league has reportedly upped their offer to 46%. Last minute talks are underway. Update 2:16 PM – False hope. Union is decertifying. Begin lockout posthaste.
  • Tim Kawakami continues to carry the torch for Larry Ellison’s NBA team ownership bid.

I need a drink.

03.09.11
by

Getting ready just in case

KCBS radio reported yesterday that an online construction bidding service, bidclerk, has a new or updated listing for an A’s stadium San Jose (paid subscription required). The value of the project is $400 million, less than what we’ve frequently discussed as the cost of the ballpark. Start date is listed as January 2013. The project description goes as follows:

New construction of an athletic stadium in San Jose. Preliminary plans call for the construction of a 32,000-seat baseball stadium. The stadium will include concession areas, restrooms, ticket boxes, V.I.P. areas, locker rooms, a medical facility and offices.

This project is contingent upon approval from Major League Baseball and the city. Construction is scheduled to begin no earlier than the first quarter of 2013.

The listing dates back to 2006, when the A’s were looking in Fremont. Strangely, the included documents are two of the now outdated Pacific Commons renderings alongside one recent San Jose rendering. Listed as project contacts are Lew Wolff and 360 Architecture principal Brad Schrock. There isn’t much information right now other than a heads up to interested contractors. Should the project be approved by MLB and SJ, activity should increase appreciably.

Wolff’s Maritz-Wolff development company also lists the Earthquakes’ stadium project. Some light-oriented schematics are included, and the project description indicates how much further along the project is compared to the ballpark:

Site work and new construction of a mixed-use development in San Jose. Schematic plans call for the construction of a 20,000-seat soccer stadium.

This project is currently in the financing stage, and construction is tentatively expected to begin in spring 2011.

In both cases, they are accurate reflections of where the two projects stand. That leaves the January 2013 start date for Cisco Field the one truly speculative item. Should it start at that date, construction would have to be completed in 27 months to be done prior to Opening Day.

03.09.11
by

San Jose’s Two Front War

If you follow this blog’s Twitter feed, you’d have seen this on Tuesday afternoon:

SJRA: Item 8.1 – Creation of San Jose Diridon Development Authority – approved unanimously. Objection by Santa Clara County.

The approval took all of a few minutes and had no speakers for or against. Compared to what was discussed during the rest of the session, it was highly anti-climactic. I left Council Chambers wanting more. After the swearing in of the SJDDA board (mayor + city council), there was a brief stretch used to establish a few ground rules, then an adjournment and a return to regular city agenda items. I didn’t realize what that last bit meant until I got home, when I saw an article in the Merc describing Santa Clara County’s $62.9 million lawsuit against San Jose.

To settle prior lawsuits over redevelopment tax grabs, the agency since 2001 has paid the county a portion of the tax dollars it collects, but agency chief Harry Mavrogenes stopped those payments as the economy soured.

By July 1, the agency will owe the county $62.9 million to fund such essential services as mental health, drug rehabilitation and juvenile justice.

San Jose city officials said they weren’t surprised by the suit.

“They need to protect their interests against whatever the state is going to do, so I understand their action,” Mayor Chuck Reed said Tuesday night. “But we also have to protect our interests as the state takes action.”

Reed said the lawsuit would not stop negotiations with the county, which have been going on for more than a year.

By acting to preempt a raid by the state, San Jose raised the ire of the county. The city and county have often clashed over funding and development priorities. I guess I’m surprised the peace lasted this long. Now we wait for the other shoe to drop in Sacramento, if it happens at all.

03.08.11
by

New Census data out, Bay Area growth slows

The Census Bureau has been releasing its updated state-by-state figures on a piecemeal basis. Today it was California’s turn to learn the good/bad news. Articles in The Bay Citizen and Contra Costa Times both present a similar picture of slower growth and significant demographic changes. The big three cities look like this:

  1. San Jose – pop. 945,942, up 5.7%
  2. San Francisco – pop. 805,235, up 3.7%
  3. Oakland – pop. 390,724, down 2.2%

San Jose boosters don’t get to claim the million mark for now. Maybe in 2012. It also became more Asian and less White (you’re welcome?). SF and Oakland both became more White, but the biggest surprise is Oakland’s drop in population, coupled with an exodus of part of the Black population to Contra Costa County (likely related).

What does this all mean besides the cyclical apportionment and redistricting battles? Probably not much, but I’m sure the commenters will figure out a way to make a mountain out of it.

More to come as I read further.

03.07.11
by

Traffic nightmare? Wrong last time…

The Merc’s authority on all things local transportation, Gary “Mr. Roadshow” Richards, fielded a question about redoing streets in the Diridon area and a ballpark’s effect on traffic.

Q Maybe it’s a little early to ask this, but how does San Jose figure on making up for the loss of Montgomery Street if an A’s ballpark is built next to the Diridon train station? A two-way Autumn Street? Reversible lanes? Seems that when events let out at HP Pavilion, it would be a nightmare to get to Interstate 280.
Craig Tomasello
San Jose

A The plan is to close Montgomery and convert Autumn Street from a three-lane, one-way road to a two-way street with two lanes in each direction. This would be a key connection to and from HP Pavilion to I-280. Traffic signals on Autumn would be managed to accommodate traffic exiting HP Pavilion. I would not worry too much about this. When the Sharks began playing downtown, naysayers said traffic would be a mess. It hasn’t been as the city has proved it can move people in and out efficiently. Baseball games would attract larger crowds, but light rail, BART, Caltrain and Amtrak would all be within an easy walk of home plate.

We may run into scale involving capacity at Diridon. The are plenty of intersections that don’t rate well. Still, traffic going through the area isn’t anywhere near the catastrophic gridlock predicted before the arena was built (hint: Julian Street is almost always clear). With vigorous enforcement of a revised TPMP, a ballpark and arena combo shouldn’t be gridlock either. A little worse, yes, but not gridlock.

03.07.11
by

State Controller’s Redevelopment Audit Released

As promised, State Controller John Chiang’s audit of 18 different redevelopment agencies was released. It paints a picture of obligations not met, bloated salaries, and limited returns. Here’s the summary of findings from the report (PDF):

  • All 18 redevelopment agencies made deposits into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in accordance with statutory requirements.
  • Of the 18 redevelopment agencies, 5 failed to deposit a portion of their tax increments into the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF). Collectively, the amount was $33.6 million. On a statewide basis, we identified another three redevelopment agencies that collectively failed to deposit a total of $7.1 million into the SERAF. As a result, the state General Fund had to make more than $40 million in backfill payments to meet minimum funding levels for the schools for FY 2009-10.
  • Ineligible charges were made against the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. These charges were identified through review of a limited number of transactions.
  • Questionable charges were made to the RDAs. Again, these charges were identified through a review of a limited number of transactions.
  • All of the 18 redevelopment agencies reviewed had reporting deficiencies.
  • All of the 18 redevelopment agencies’ independent auditors failed to identify major audit violations and did not include all required information in the audit reports.
  • The City of Calexico has failed to repay the RDA for principal and interest for a loan. Under current legal standards, virtually any condition could be construed to be blight.

Specific observations include:

  • The redevelopment agencies do not have a consistent methodology to capture accurate and reliable data regarding the number of jobs created or retained as a result of redevelopment activities.
  • Significant variation exists among the redevelopment agencies for how indebtedness is determined.
  • Significant differences exist among redevelopment agencies for accounting for planning and general administrative costs.
  • Compensation of redevelopment agency officials appears to be in line with other local government officials.

Regarding the last charge, San Jose’s RDA appears to be an exception in that its top five highest paid employees earned more than $180k last year, the head making nearly $300k. 25% of salaries for Mayor Chuck Reed, the City Council, and 40 of their staff members are under the SJRA budget. In Fremont, the City Attorney and City Manager are on RDA payroll. Richmond’s agency neglected to pass through over $10 million in education-bound revenue. And then there’s Palm Desert, which will go down in ignominy by somehow declaring one of the best public golf courses in the state, Desert Willow Golf Resort, “blighted.” The report’s finding:

The fact that the RDA continues to insist that a 4 1⁄2 star golf course to be blighted further illustrates our point that virtually any condition could be construed to be blighted. Moreover, the renovation of all 18 greens, reshaping of greenside bunkers and fairway bunkers, new bunker drainage improvements, bunker liners, new sand, and restoration of all lake edges to maintain the publicly owned golf course is in violation of Health and Safety Code section 33445(a)(3) which prohibits RDAs from paying normal maintenance or other improvement of publicly owned facilities.

If you’re looking for that one item that the media, especially the national media, will pick up and run with, that’s it.

03.06.11
by

San Jose Diridon Development Authority

The what?

That’s the name of the soon-to-be-formed joint powers authority. Joint powers are defined as the City of San Jose and the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. Despite the distinct possibility that the SJRA will be no more in a few months, the creation of this organization will effectively ensure that some kind of redevelopment arm will continue on for the next several decades. Here’s the full text of the resolution under consideration this Tuesday at the weekly SJRA meeting (1:30 PM, SJ City Hall Council Chambers):

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN JOSE DIRIDON DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

WHEREAS, the City of San Jose and the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency have many potential development and redevelopment projects on the horizon in the Diridon area including high speed rail, BART, and a potential sports stadium; and

WHEREAS, the Agency wishes to have the benefit of the City’s expertise and the ability to use the joint powers of the City and the Agency for the purposes of considering and facilitating future redevelopment in the Diridon area; and

WHEREAS, the City and the Agency desire to create an independent joint powers authority empowered to finance, develop, redevelop, implement, and operate future projects in or serving the Diridon area; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a joint powers agreement with the Agency to form the San Jose Diridon Development Authority (the “Authority”); and

WHEREAS, there are no specific projects proposed for the Authority at this time and any future projects will be considered by the Authority Board in a manner consistent with applicable law; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to San Jose Municipal Code Section 4.32.010, in order to enter into a joint powers agreement creating a joint powers authority with the power to issue revenue bonds, the City Council must find that the public interests and necessity demand that (a) the Authority acquire, construct, maintain, and operate the properties and the projects undertaken into pursuant to the Authority joint powers agreement, and (b) the Authority be empowered to exercise the power to issue revenue bonds; and

WHEREAS, those findings can be made based on the information in the memorandum dated March 4, 2011 from the City Manager and the Executive Director.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:

  1. The City Council hereby determines, based upon the information contained in the memorandum from the City Manager and Agency’s Executive Director dated March 4, 2011, that the public interests and necessity demand that:
    1. The San Jose Diridon Development Authority be empowered to acquire, construct, maintain, and operate properties and the projects undertaken into pursuant to the San Jose Diridon Development Authority joint powers agreement; and
    2. The San Jose Diridon Development Authority be empowered to exercise the power to issue revenue bonds.
  2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the San Jose Diridon Development Authority joint powers agreement.

The Diridon area is not itself a specific redevelopment area, but it falls under the guise of redevelopment as part of San Jose’s Strong Neighborhoods Initiative. Approval of this resolution and other related actions would create a “son of RDA” just for Diridon. The new agency would be tasked with planning and infrastructure for a ballpark (or alternative), transit hub, and a whatever ends up in the six acres between the arena and ballpark site. Included would be properties in the Autumn Parkway project.

Creation of SJDDA does not mean the City has somehow sidestepped the public referendum requirement for a ballpark, as that is enshrined in municipal code. It does mean that the new body would have potentially broad and sweeping authority to raise funds for projects within the area. At this point my guess is that fundraising would be limited to transit infrastructure, as the cost to construct San Jose’s “Grand Central of the West” will be enormous – well into nine figures on its own. Attempts to include the ballpark would be unpopular and highly transparent, creating a situation in which one project could drag another down. This is especially critical as it applies to raising bonds, as bond issuers have been very skittish about dealing with California’s cities in light of the near and long-term prospects for RDAs.

One of SJRA’s related actions is a one-year extension of the time limits for both redevelopment activity and indebtedness for all existing project areas. Diridon has the latest dates on the schedule, with a current activity end date of July 2033 and a debt end date of July 2048. BART and HSR should be in place by 2034, right? Er… By extending the dates for project areas, the relinquishment of tax increment to state/county would be further delayed. SJRA is by far the most indebted in the state.

I mentioned last week that I wasn’t thrilled about the possibility of this happening, notably because it replaces one bureaucracy with another. This is clearly a reaction to what’s coming from Sacramento, and cities feel they are being backed into corners by the Governor’s demands. It’ll be interesting to see how the Governor’s office reacts to these types of arrangements, and to find out what new funds will be recognized by the state after these “sons of RDAs” squirrel away their share. Whether a ballpark or something else gets built at Diridon, that new development will be extremely important as its tax increment (or possessory interest taxes) will help fund the future transit hub.

03.06.11
by

Lacob makes an oops

I guess this marks the end of the honeymoon.

We may be a few months away from Northern California being a one-horse NBA territory, that horse being the Golden State Warriors. That makes it the perfect time for the W’s owner to open his mouth and insert a foot, no? The internets are abuzz with a quote Joe Lacob made during a panel at the annual Sloan Sports Conference back east. Asked whether bloggers (such as those at Warriors World and Athletics Nation) are fans, Lacob replied:

“They are not real fans, because they don’t have season tickets.”

Ouch.

This led to the expected evisceration of Lacob by those aforementioned bloggers and commenters pretty much everywhere, including this excellent post by Bay Area Sports Guy. Is this Lacob’s real opinion of fans, or did he simply not think his response through? We’ll find out in a day or two.

It’s strange that Lacob could show such disdain for fans. Many people who participate online are incapable of being season ticket holders for any number of reasons:

  • Familial responsibilities
  • Distance
  • Work schedules
  • Economic means and status

Many fans, due to circumstance, can only take in a game here or there or buy a miniplan of some sort. The Warriors’ season ticket base may have eroded thanks to the mismanagement of Chris Cohan, but overall ticket sales are still strong, as evidenced by this season’s 18,651 average attendance. The W’s are one of two teams in the top 10 in the NBA to have an under-.500 record. The other team, Cleveland, presold tickets last season with the idea that they would retain LeBron James. That didn’t work out so well.

While NBA tickets are generally thought of as expensive, in the W’s case they’re actually quite reasonable. Team Marketing Report has the team’s average ticket price (PDF) at $34.13, the lowest of all four California teams. Tickets in the ends of the lower bowl can be had for $35 a game as part of a season ticket package, which is a fabulous deal when considering the proximity of those sections to the court in Oracle Arena’s basketball-friendly layout.

At the heart of Lacob’s quote and the subsequent outcry is the question of what a “real fan” is. We’ve talked plenty about how much corporate interests mean when it comes to allowing a team to thrive or even survive on an annual basis. When it comes to classifying fans, though, that’s really dangerous territory and it’s something we’ve tried to avoid here. Fanhood can’t be quantified. Consider the following examples:

  • The college student who grew up loving the W’s and can’t afford season tickets yet.
  • The professional firm who buys four club seat full season plans mainly to hand them out to clients.
  • The former season ticket holder who is now married, has three kids, and is too busy to see more than 3-4 games per season in person.
  • A couple who moved to the East Coast for work and follows the W’s on NBA League Pass (TV and online) and gets tickets whenever the W’s come to their city.
  • A night security guard who listens to KNBR constantly, reads WW and GSOM, and whose best chance to attend games is the rare day game.
  • A poor teenager who idolizes Monta Ellis or Stephen Curry and whose single mother works two jobs and doesn’t have the time to take the kid to a game.

Which of the above seems the least like a real fan?

Lacob’s gonna have a lot of explaining to do in the coming days. Perhaps he should take some pointers from Andy Dolich’s Virtual Season Ticket concept, which could use some fleshing out for the NBA model but has potential. It’s incredibly obtuse to rule out huge demographics who contribute to the W’s bottom line – indirectly yet significantly. Whatever he does, he probably won’t be so dismissive the next time around. Then again, there’s one sure fire way for W’s to get new season ticket buyers: win more games. Just a thought.

P.S. On the venue front, Lacob mentioned that the team’s lease runs through the 2016-17 season, which we’ve discussed here when the possibility of moving to San Francisco has come up. Makes me wonder if he’s already mentally checked out of Oakland.

P.P.S. Tim Kawakami has a clarification from Lacob, in which he was referring more to profanity-laced emailers than bloggers per se:

“The last thing I’d want to do is denigrate the online community,” Lacob said. ”I think I’ve demonstrated an openness to media, the fans, everybody, to answer every question, take it head on. And I’m willing to listen.”

Let’s hug it out, bitches.

03.04.11
by

Ray Ratto: Ballpark Feasibility Detective

Several hours ago I listed to the latest installment of Dale Tafoya’s Athletics After Dark podcast, this one featuring Ray Ratto. Ratto thinks that the San Jose stadium plan is near death:

The “Blue Ribbon Committee” is a fraud. The territorial rights argument is a fraud. This is about one thing and one thing only, and it’s always been about this: Do the A’s have the money to put a shovel in the ground? If they had the money to put a shovel in the ground, we would’ve gone to Bud Selig and said, “We’re ready to go now.” And then Bud Selig can either tell the committee to produce a report or he could just go without it and start harvesting votes if they really want this to happen. I think it is incumbent upon the A’s to show that they’re ready to go right now and the fact that they keep saying, “well we haven’t seen the blue ribbon report…” You know what? That’s due diligence and you’re supposed to do that. If you’ve got that stuff down you’re already working at that.

…In the current economic climate, where you really need help from cities and states to get buildings done if you don’t want to go into your own personal debt. I think that the idea of a San Jose stadium is really fading. It may be dead at this point. It’s taken too long for the A’s to get what ducks they have in a row, in a row. So I think the problem here is the A’s needed more help than they let on and now they’re stuck.

The bedeviling thing about how MLB works is this black hole of information around Selig. We know a lot about what San Jose is doing, we know a decent amount about what Oakland is doing. We have Wolff and his media campaign, we have responses from Neukom and Baer. The only thing we don’t have is the really important stuff. We don’t know what Selig’s, and by extension the other owners’, motivation is. To fill that void, Ratto theorizes that money is the problem. Which it may be, none of us have a financing plan in front of us.

But unlike the territorial rights issue or the progress of environmental impact reports, there is absolutely zero data or precedent to back up Ratto’s supposition. He is quite literally going on a hunch, making the analytical leap that it must be the money and everything else is a sham.

That makes little sense when you consider the following:

  • The Giants have been spending millions on preserving T-rights to the South Bay over the last two years. They bought a majority share of the SJ Giants. They’ve been redoubling marketing efforts in the South Bay. Their stance on T-rights has gotten more hardline with the passing of time. They’ve threatened legal action – not directly, through intermediaries. No organization goes to this much trouble if they don’t believe that something major is at stake.
  • They don’t call Selig “Slug” for nothing. The man is interminably slow when it comes to big decisions and is more than willing to say the sky is green when it is obviously blue (his remarks about competitive balance are a good example). This one’s a very big one since it involves something the big market owners consider sacred. I’ve said before that Selig isn’t going to act until at least one of these cities has all of their ducks in a row. That means the site, legal/political clearances, everything. San Jose isn’t there yet. Oakland isn’t there yet. And the Grim Reaper is coming fast for cities. Plus there’s the possibility that upcoming CBA negotiations will come into play, especially because the biggest debate will be about revenue sharing. If you’re Selig, why would you lift a finger until this other stuff shakes out? I wouldn’t. I guess you can call me “Slug” too.
  • The money is a lot more “there” than “not there.” Wolff hasn’t been afraid to say when money is an issue – look at what’s been happening with the Quakes. He also hasn’t been afraid to bail on a project when it couldn’t work out financially, as was the case in Fremont and Oakland. Is it all locked in and under contract? Probably not. The timing of the hiring of Darrin Gross to the business side of the A’s may be a clue. Wolff hired David Kaval under the same auspices with the Quakes last year, and now we’re a few months away from groundbreaking. And let’s not forget that Cisco and SVLG are nothing to sneeze at.
  • This stuff takes a long time to pan out. Peter Magowan took over the Giants in spring 1993. It took four years to get a ballpark deal in place and another three to build it. Magowan never had to worry about complications like T-rights. San Jose has been handicapped by the T-rights debate, which has strung the effort out to five years to get to this point (though there were two silent years). Ratto makes it sound like either Selig or Wolff can just forcefully say, “Make it so,” and things start happening, chop-chop. That’s not reflective of how this works. It’s an ugly, dirty process, borderline corrupt (if not outright) at times.

This post is yet another case of devoting nearly 1,000 words to something that was not news, merely a theory from a columnist. Who knows, maybe Ratto will be proven right in the end? If not, I suspect that when a groundbreaking ceremony occurs at Diridon this very interview will be played over the loudspeakers, an audio version of the “Dewey beats Truman” moment. Tech writer John Gruber calls it claim chowder. I’ll just call it a hunch.