It’s strange being an A’s fan these days, isn’t it? Between the lockout, the unceremonious dumping of star players, a team whose only goal these days is to get the next #1 draft pick (not guaranteed because of a new draft lottery), and empty Coliseum crowds night after night, we’re in a bad, bad way. Comparisons to “Major League” have never been more apt. The only hope on the distant horizon is the promise of Howard Terminal bringing stability and relevance back to the A’s and the East Bay.

The slog of making Howard Terminal a reality became clearer on Thursday, as the SF BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) approved the de-designation of the 56-acre waterfront parcel near downtown Oakland from Port Priority Use, which allows the A’s to further pursue their $12 Billion ballpark mega-development there. There’s still a long way to go before ground can be broken, but removing PPU was a crucial step which isn’t easily done despite the seemingly overwhelming 23-2 vote. Development of the land is still conditional pending the A’s obtaining a permit, a process that will incur more rigorous review when the time comes. No date is scheduled for BCDC review yet, as the next steps are to be taken by the City of Oakland, other state agencies, and the courts.

From the BCDC’s standpoint, the approval allowed the “hot potato” that is Howard Terminal to be passed back to the City, which will vote CM Noel Gallo’s proposal to place the project on the November ballot as an advisory vote. Gallo argues that the citizens deserve to give their say publicly, while opponents say that such a measure is a waste of time, never mind that the City Council just approved about a dozen ballot measures for November. Among those measures is a controversial one that will allow non-citizen residents of Oakland vote on the OUSD board. Perhaps they could extend the non-citizen logic to all Alameda County residents voting on the ballpark? (Kidding.) The best way to go would be to let Oakland voters decide on a finished project whenever it’s ready, which is not going to be this November. That wouldn’t make the A’s braintrust happy, but it would at least allow the citizens to decide on a sports project, which has been documented ad nauseam, hadn’t been the case previously.

After the advisory vote question is resolved (or not), the City and the A’s just might be able to nail down the details of the development agreement. The deadline for to happen is either the November election or January, when Libby Schaaf’s successor and multiple new council members take office. Previously I predicted that Howard Terminal will have an impact on the election. It hasn’t yet, though election season is still young. The filing deadline for candidates is August 12, with three current Council members (Loren Taylor, Sheng Thao, Treva Reid) in the running plus a slew of others. As a midterm election with several public offices and measures in play, turn out should be brisk with or without an additional ballpark measure.

Would the A’s dare call their negotiations off if the ballot item, even an advisory one, were added in November? Over the last three years the A’s had no qualms turning up the heat when they had the choice, from playing hardball with with last summer’s term sheet to calling the BCDC vote key in their #HowardTerminalOrBust campaign. Every time, the City, Port, and State agencies managed to extend the game by deferring an important decision to the future or changing the terms enough to appear inscrutable. In baseball terms it’s akin to fouling off two-strike pitches.

But enough of the hacky sports analogies. The worst thing we can do in trying to communicate this extremely complex project is to try to boil it down to an at-bat, an inning/game/season. Those are all fairly linear affairs with simple to understand results that can be easily printed on a scoreboard or standings table. What Oakland is dealing with now is multi-faceted and subject to so many externalities that it can be hard to describe the players in terms of roles. Take MLB and commissioner Rob Manfred, for instance. In the game analogy, what is Manfred? The crew chief umpire? A dugout manager? Or a front office presence like Billy Beane? And what is the BCDC? One of the outfield umps they use for the postseason or the video review team in New York?

Anyway, it’s all kind of silly except for something I’ve noticed over the last 9-12 months. A pattern has emerged from how these deliberating bodies act. As much or as little as these individuals want to keep the last major pro team in Oakland, what they don’t want to do is be blamed for the last major pro team leaving. Some time ago, I heard an unsourced story emanating from within Oakland that indicated that the pols there are mostly interested in keeping conversations going to keep teams in town – and that was while the Raiders and Warriors were still at the Coliseum. As for the actual dealmaking part, they’re gun-shy because public funding is a third rail issue within city limits. Sure, there are claims and counterclaims about how much funding will be required, the “but for” nature of the funding, etc. The simple fact of the matter is that the off-site infrastructure (train fences and bridges, curb ramps and sidewalks, signage and lighting) will be funded by one or more bond issues. The danger is that, as is often the case with big public works projects, the revenue required to pay the back the bonds will be insufficient to start. You might say, that’s impossible, this will be a smash hit, and you may be correct. It isn’t guaranteed, not in the slightest. 

If the real estate market undergoes a correction like 2008, it will severely impact the ability to pay back those bonds. And the thing that has always concerned me about this project is that no one really has a handle on how much the off-site infrastructure will cost. I’ve heard $200 million, $380 million, $500 million, $700 million, and now EOSA’s FUD is talking a cool $1 Billion. That number will continue to climb rightly or wrongly because it’s not being discussed publicly. You might think it’s worth it, and that’s a valid opinion. I’m just saying it should be hashed out. Not in private, not in closed session. In public. If Oakland is going to do this right and not repeat the mistakes of the past, it can’t just leave it to the Council. Those saying voters can simply choose not to re-elect whoever made the bad decision apparently never heard of closing the barn door after the cows escaped. Did you watch the beginning of the BCDC meeting, where all of the commissioners disclosed who they had conversations with on Howard Terminal? They mentioned everyone, from the building trades to the longshoremen/EOSA and of course, the A’s. That should be the case for all discussions on a project worth $12 Billion. Is good governance not bigger than baseball? If not, it should be. It’s not enough to Git ‘Er Dun. They have to get it done right. And so far any promises to that effect have mostly been lip service.

Hi there. It’s me, the occasional blog proprietor. I haven’t gone anywhere as I’ve been mostly frustrated by MLB’s labor situation and baseball’s flagging status as America’s pastime. Through that lens I watched the Howard Terminal ballpark process take multiple steps forward and back, each moment of doubt cancelling out hard-earned legal and procedural victories.

Chief among those victories was the certification of the final environmental impact report, which occurred on February 18. I thought that opponents would file a lawsuit before the certification. Instead they took the legal window after the certification to file their lawsuit, though if you were curious you saw previews in the numerous critical comments by constituent groups prior to the certification.

Whether or not you were following this closely, you had to know that the filing of lawsuit challenging the certification was a foregone conclusion. Legislation backed by the A’s allows for such challenges to be wrapped up in 270 days instead of dragging out the process for years. What’s not a foregone conclusion is how this will all play out. The only other sports facility that benefited from the CEQA streamlining provision was the Clippers’ upcoming arena in Inglewood. That legal battle lasted four months, until Steve Ballmer literally bought the Forum, whose owner, MSG, filed the complaint. Ballmer’s purchase ended the legal challenge. When you’re talking about millions of dollars, sometimes it takes a billionaire to end the debate. Is Fisher capable of that?

That buyout scenario is impossible in Oakland. Beyond the limits of John Fisher’s legendary thriftiness, unlike Inglewood, the two warring parties aren’t both in the sports and entertainment business. Their industries are fundamentally different, making any kind of buyout incredibly complicated and, in all likelihood, not comprehensive enough for either party’s satisfaction. Moreover, the working Port interests (shipping and transportation) are affected by a rezoned Howard Terminal in different ways – some acute, others long-term. One aspect of the lawsuit that hasn’t been discussed yet is that it is missing Union Pacific, whose rail line runs right down the Embarcadero next to Howard Terminal, and whose general counsel argued vociferously against the project. A’s President A’s President Dave Kaval indicated that more lawsuits are forthcoming. UPRR is clearly the next candidate to file by the Monday deadline.

EOSA is looking for $12 Billion in this legal pursuit, a curious number because the economic impact of Howard Terminal is ALSO supposed to be $12 Billion. Obviously, the two don’t cancel each other out in the modern world of overinflated economic impact claims. The City and Port as governmental entities keep trying to mediate the situation and convince the industrial entities that there is room for both a working port and redevelopment along the waterfront. That may or may not be a losing battle, as the two sides prepare for entrenched warfare over the next nine months or more. 

On a YouTube post, Brodie Brazil attempted to discuss Port economics in an admittedly shallow fashion, to which I pointed out that the Port isn’t only measured by shipping containers. Perhaps it’s time for the City and Port to fully discuss the future of the Port. Is it in actuality a boutique version of an industrial port that only accepts containers? Is there room to deal with other types of cargo, which shipping interests want to expand but West Oakland community groups oppose due to environmental concerns? Already, coal exports from Utah were nixed. If sand and gravel don’t happen either, that starts to effectively limit the Port’s opportunities to containers and vehicles/equipment that don’t go to SoCal. The Port was bypassed during much of 2020 when it made more financial sense to queue offshore for San Pedro and Long Beach instead of going 300+ miles to an underutilized Oakland, so Danny Wan and his staff are fully aware of what could happen if they pigeonhole themselves. And it isn’t just about what the purpose of the Port of Oakland is. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested over the past 20+ years to take over the decommissioned Army Base, repurpose much of the property for Port purposes, and provide support for many of the smaller companies that do business there. How much does that investment matter? Does the Port get scaled back even further over time? How do the agricultural customers that depend on Oakland adjust as their closest, best export facility faces transformation or increased competition? 

Too much Port talk? There will be plenty more in the coming months. If you want to read more about what the A’s and Oakland are facing, take a look at the correspondence at the project website. For now, let’s talk baseball and ballparks.

Here’s the thing that has always puzzled me about the Howard Terminal initiative. The A’s brass knew 20 years ago that this would be a long slog and they kept at it anyway when they started the HT gambit in earnest in 2018. They got a reprieve when their streamlining legislation held up in court, limiting the legal challenge to 270 days after EIR certification. The problem with that is that it condenses the negotiation period with multiple opponents (EOSA, UPRR, others to come) to that 270-day period. All of those parties are going to exact a price for the A’s project either in terms of money or time. Since time is money, these negotiations threaten to push out the groundbreaking and opening dates past 2027, possibly long past 2027. Now that much of the project’s decision-making is outside the City’s and Port’s purview, there’s less incentive to make the deal work by the BCDC and SLC. Think of it this way: If you live and work in Sacramento or San Diego, how much does Oakland’s civic pride and baseball team matter to you? It’s a big state. If the A’s leave California, the state will still have four MLB franchises and three iconic ballparks. The City and Port still have to work out the development agreement, but decisions by other agencies could gum up the works as the BCDC’s Seaport Advisory Committee did two weeks ago when they recommended against the project moving forward.

One question I’ve heard more frequently recently is: Did the A’s propose Howard Terminal specifically because they knew it would be difficult to get approval? Fisher is a Bay Area native, and much of the new money partners are based in the Bay, so despite my well-known misgivings over the project, I’ll give Fisher the benefit of the doubt regarding his initial intentions. I’m sure he and his people truly believe in the transformative nature of the project. Heck, I believe it too, though I don’t know if there’s been enough discussion over what “transformative” means besides providing a ballpark, some market-rate housing, and expanding Downtown Oakland. The EIR was certified as a project-level EIR, which limited its scope. It will get picked apart as the opponents claim it should be a program-level EIR, far more expansive that originally envisioned. A key issue that will come up in the negotiations or in court is how on February 3 the A’s submitted a letter in support of the EIR alternative that eventually approved, which included the six-lane vehicular bridge that will connect the development and designated ballpark parking to the rest of Downtown Oakland. For some reason, the A’s did not publicly support this alternative until two weeks before the certification. The reason why was not given, but I suspect it had to do with the A’s not choosing not to commit to the funding of that aspect, which will run into the nine figures and will be borne by the City, which is searching for federal and state grants to make it happen. If it’s built, the bridge will be one of the first things to go up, even before the ballpark. Again, this threatens to push out groundbreaking and opening of the ballpark while also pulling from whatever limited public resources are available for off-site infrastructure. 

This much is certain: Fisher, like most of his other stadium endeavors, has a hard limit of what he’s willing to spend. If you read the reports out of Vegas, the A’s have a set budget for what they want to spend on land there, apparently $150 million or so. They plan the use the same recipe they’re using in Oakland, with proceeds from entitlements funding a ballpark. What’s unclear is how much better the Vegas deal has to be to make the A’s leave. It sounds incredibly crass due to how it disregards the rich history of A’s baseball in Oakland, but if you take into account how Fisher is willing to burn down both the team and the fanbase to get what he wants, it’s a natural progression. “Howard Terminal or Bust” is more than a slogan. With the Coliseum declared not viable, it’s the only hope for A’s baseball in Oakland. It didn’t have to be that way.

The Raiders declared their move to Vegas before Opening Day 2017. The City of Oakland, in its infinite wisdom, took the Raiders and the NFL to court again. And they lost, again. They’re taking the current challenge all the way to the Supreme Court, hoping that the conservatively-tilted court will rule in their favor. Don’t worry though, the lawsuit was taken on contingency so it isn’t costing the City anything. Imagine that instead of tilting at windmills, the City decided to support the one team staying in Oakland and gave the A’s all the benefits provided by the Coliseum City project’s EIR. By the time the Raiders left after the 2019 season, the A’s could have started building a ballpark next to the Coliseum without worrying about the SLC, BCDC, EOSA, or UPRR. There would’ve been a groundswell of support and, if they got something designed and approved in the requisite lead time for such projects, a ballpark could’ve opened in 2023. That’s right, next year. Instead, we’re talking about whether they can break ground in 2024. That’s where we are, well past the debate of the perfect as the enemy of the good. If Oakland’s fate is to lose all of its major sports franchises, it’s because it couldn’t see the opportunities for what they were: matters of timing and luck. If that happens, I will be immeasurably sad. Not as sad as people who reside in the East Bay, but sad nonetheless. Because Oakland had something good in its grasp and is choosing to throw it away. 

Christmas is coming early for yours truly. For me it started with this comment I made after watching Zennie Abraham’s recent discussion with Mike Jacob of PMSA.

Sure enough, this afternoon the City of Oakland announced that the Final EIR will be released tomorrow, December 17. As Jacob noted, it’s customary for municipalities to release such docs on Fridays, and since two of the next three come right before holidays, it had to be tomorrow or 2022. So we’ll get 3,500 pages, which will include the accrued comments from the Draft EIR cycle. Apparently it was decided that despite numerous protestations, the City would not recirculate the Draft EIR to elicit additional comments. 

Now we are approaching the point where the rubber meets the road. It all comes down to what it will take to get this EIR certified. The A’s were able to get CEQA streamlining approved in August after a favorable court ruling. After all parties – businesses, community, other public agencies – review the Final EIR, they’ll get to comment for another brief period. Then come the agency approvals, followed by the certification and the development agreement between the City/Port and the A’s. That last part is the deal to be struck between the parties: how will it be phased, which items are prioritized first, who pays for what, etc.

Here’s a cheat: Friday’s drop is not the Cliffs Notes version of the Final EIR as it’s 3,500 pages combined. However, if you go through the comments at the project website and combine them with the Draft EIR, you’ve got about two-thirds of the Final EIR. Not interested? Well then, you’re probably not interested in the Final EIR’s 3,500 pages either. I understand the desire to have everything distilled into simple passages, that’s part of why blogs like this exist. This time, I’m not going to let you off easy. I will give you two items that are certain to be at the top of the punch list for Howard Terminal.

The least sexy part of this project is the building of bridges over the railroad tracks, bridges that are a required mitigation. I tweeted about this in November.

The bridge pictured is L-shaped and runs south from Brush Street, over the tracks, and turns west onto Embarcadero West to the parking lots and garages to be constructed near the ballpark. Federal regulations require that there is at least 30 feet of vertical clearance above the active tracks, which makes the bridges have fairly steep approaches from either end. It’s steep enough that the bridges don’t conform to pedestrian standards, so they’re not likely to have sidewalks. Instead, the one designated safe pedestrian crossing will be at Jefferson, where a ADA compliant bridge with proper ramps will take fans from the ballpark to the transit hub and other points north to downtown. It’s possible that fans could cross the tracks at grade, but Union Pacific and other rail companies are fighting to have all of Embarcadero West fenced off to prevent people from chancing it. They’re even arguing that the scope of the project EIR should extend past the lot boundaries due to spillover impacts, which could introduce additional mitigation measures.

The irony of the whole situation is that the 4-lane vehicular bridge is not considered enough to handle gameday car traffic, so an at-grade crossing (probably at Market Street) would still be necessary. If you want to get a feel for what that bridge would be like, the Hegenberger overpass over the tracks near the Coliseum carries six lanes of traffic and prohibits pedestrians on part of it. As for the capacity of the planned pedestrian bridge, BART has thoughts:

When I explained previously that two-thirds of the Final EIR was already in the Draft version and the comments, I left out the missing part: the responses to the comments. Now that I’ve spent several weeks digesting the comments, I’m ready for the responses. I advise you to wear long pants, because we’re about to head into the weeds.

Another week, another reckoning. This time it’s Alameda County’s turn to hold the fate of the Oakland A’s in its hands, if that can be believed. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors *might* take a vote to approve taking part in the Howard Terminal EIFD. An approval would allow the County to be a party to the bonds/loans that have to be raised for the infrastructure on the $12 Billion project. In case you need a refresher, here are some links that pertain to Tuesday’s meeting agenda to the June meeting:

• Broadcast link
• 10/26 agenda
• Valle letter
• 6/15 Meeting coverage
• August delay (Merc)

There are a handful of things you should know before you attempt to watch the meeting or follow any further coverage. First, let’s remember that the Board of Supervisors *may* choose to *decide* whether or not to make a *non-binding* resolution in support of the project. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen anything that non-committal since 90’s-era Julia Roberts movies.

During the June meeting, Supervisor Richard Valle (D2-Hayward/Union City) thought the item could be raised in September, after the County came back from summer recess. Obviously that didn’t happen and the item was mysteriously pushed back further and further until Valle and fellow Supervisors David Haubert (D1-Fremont/Pleasanton) sent a letter to their colleague Keith Carson (D5-Oakland/Berkeley). The reasoning was supposedly that the County needed to wait until it received the results of a study on the direct economic impacts of Howard Terminal. That study came at the end of October. It said that the County will receive over $5 million per year after paying off the EIFD bonds.

Discussion of a ballpark-cum-ancillary development’s short and long-term economic impacts are one thing. At some point, if this is to move forward with Alameda County signing on, this will also become a real negotiation between Alameda County, the City of Oakland, and the A’s. It’s not enough for the City to make claims about how much money the County will get out of it. The fact is that the City can’t do this on its own. They need the County to partner up in order to make the revenue flows work. And so far, the City has seen fit to dismiss the second IFD that the A’s wanted in the their own proposal. City says they can cover the $350 million cost, though their are few specifics and the sources appear to be mostly state and federal funds. The County will probably counter with its own demands, which are sure to raise some eyebrows. The project is currently structured so that all of the major transportation improvements other than the new streets inside the project area have to be built and funded off-site. The transit hub is one. The gondola would be another, especially if it is extended across the Estuary. A pedestrian/bike bridge across the Estuary is a very good potential ask or sticking point. Same goes for additional transit improvements from elsewhere in the East Bay. Already the A’s are debating the merits of bus shuttles from the West Oakland and Lake Merritt BART stations.

Beyond the project needs, the discussion is a good opportunity for Carson (and perhaps Nate Miley) to get on his soapbox and rail again about how Oakland is asking Alameda County to get involved. I don’t think he’ll vote no; frankly, no public figure wants to be the crucial vote that evicts the last major pro sports franchise from Oakland – if that narrative is to be believed. But Carson can and should complain that Oakland has put Alameda County in this position when they weren’t involved at all not even a year ago. And so I expect Carson to go off like Frank Costanza at Festivus dinner with a proper airing of grievances. Supervisor Wilma Chan (D3-Alameda), whose district might get the some of the most severe traffic impacts, is effectively the swing vote. If the Board gets to the point of taking a vote, it should be yes. Yet again, it will be another overly dramatized debate to move the discussion a tiny bit. It’s the equivalent of getting a leadoff walk when you know that guy’s not going to be driven in without a home run. Based on how the 2021 season transpired, A’s and Giants fans are all too familiar with that.

Assuming this goes through, what and when is the next manufactured crisis?

–

P.S.  – Have you noticed all of the letters of support from East Bay cities that aren’t Oakland? Have you noticed a pattern? Howard Terminal has the support of the mayor, who as we’ve noted before, is a lame duck and has an undeserved legacy of losing franchises. The two local pols who otherwise directly represent the Howard Terminal area, Supervisor Carson and Oakland Councilperson Carroll Fife (Oakland District 3), are not exactly out with pom-poms. No doubt some of that tepid support comes from Port interest pressure. Ironic, then, how the greatest support comes from the furthest away? It’s probably more like the A’s ticket base than we’re comfortable admitting.