The Chronicle (thanks, Ballpark Digest) mentions a bill making its way through the California Legislature that would create a statewide governing body that would help fund, construct, and run various types of public entertainment venues, namely sports venues. The bill is CA SB 4, introduced by State Senator Kevin Murray of Culver City.

Unlike most other states, California has left funding for sports venue projects entirely in the hands of cities and counties. With the budget crunch seriously affecting city coffers, most cities have had little financial wherewithal or interest in publicly financing any new stadiums or arenas. The bill aims to create a governing body called the California Public Performance Facilities Authority, that would acquire land, issue bonds for construction, sell personal seat licenses and naming rights agreements, build and maintain the facilities. In other words, soup to nuts.

The question to pose here is, “Can this type of authority work in a state as large as California?” The NorCal/SoCal divide is alive and well, and it shows up when large projects have to be debated, such as the Bay Bridge Retrofit or water diversion. First, lets look at the projects that could be undertaken by the Authority:

1. A’s ballpark in Oakland/Alameda County
2. San Francisco 49ers stadium
3. San Diego Chargers stadium
4. Sacramento Kings arena
5. New LA football stadium to attract an NFL team
6. San Jose Earthquakes stadium

That’s over $2 billion in projects right there. But that’s not all. The Authority would also fund infrastructure associated with these projects. It could also fund the construction of practice facilities, theaters and concert halls, race tracks, and just about anything else associated with live performances.

Some other notes:

• The Authority would by administered by a nine-member Board of Directors. Five members would be appointed by the Governor (Schwarzenegger), two by the Senate President Pro Tem (Don Perata, Oakland), and two by the Assembly Speaker (Fabian Nunez, Los Angeles)
• Bonds would be issued by the Authority, with revenue from each facility used to pay back the debt. (I’m not sure if this works under federal tax law.) As far as I can tell, no other input from the state would be required, which gives the Authority a significant amount of unfettered power.
• The Authority could work directly with the California Infrastructure Development Bank instead of through the Legislature to obtain funds
• One facility’s revenues could not be used to pay back another’s debt.
• Debt incurred by the Authority would not be considered state debt (this is probably the federal tax loophole).
• There would be a 40-year limit on the term of any issued bonds.
• The bonds would be tax-exempt.
• There’s no description of any remedies that would be taken should revenue shortfalls make it difficult to repay debt.
• The Authority would have eminent domain powers just like those of a city or county. Eminent domain is used at times for redevelopment purposes.
• The bill is supported by Anschutz Entertainment Group, which owns the privately-owned Staples Center, LA Kings NHL franchise, the LA Galaxy and San Jose Earthquakes MLS teams, and the SF Examiner. AEG has stakes in the LA Lakers, Qwest Communications, and other wide-ranging ventures. Finally, AEG has been actively involved in the effort to attract an NFL franchise to LA.

The Sacramento Ballpark Authority, which built Raley Field, was cited as a successful example of this type of governing body. But how well does it scale? If this bill passes, we’ll soon find out. Proponents will say this gives California teams the ability to bridge the gap in funding between them and out-of-state competitors. Opponents will say this looks like a huge, state-mandated pork project authority with no real public oversight. For each Sacramento Ballpark Authority, there’s also an Oakland Football Marketing Association.

Reflecting some fans’ growing sense of unease about the Wolff’s stadium efforts, the Oakland Tribune printed a new op-ed piece wondering if Wolff is really serious about keeping the A’s in Oakland.

There is a question of whether this “paranoia” (their term, not mine) is grounded in reality. Frankly, a little “skepticism” (my term, not theirs) is healthy, since it tends to lead to a more realistic view of the situation. Unfortunately, there are some issues that can’t be avoided, and they are contributing to this unease:

• Oakland is running out of sites. Counting Wolff’s dismissal of the Coliseum south lot, there are now only two sites left from the original seven in the HOK study. Those are the Oak-to-9th site (issues detailed in last night’s post), and perhaps Fremont (which has had no public discussion recently).
• Sites along BART corridors are disappearing quickly, as large mixed-use transit village developments are being constructed and planned near existing BART stations.
• The sites that have been discussed have high acquisition and remediation (cleanup) costs associated with them, which can drive up the cost of a ballpark tens of millions of dollars.
• There has been little discussion of the financing issue, which promises to be the most divisive and difficult of all.
• There has been no effort to raise awareness among the voting public. The closed manner in which Wolff and his development team is proceeding is partly to blame for this.
• Mayoral support is non-existent.

Wolff still has several months left to complete his local search, after which he’ll make some sort of announcement. I personally feel that it is still possible to get some sort of plan moving forward, but the A’s really need to involve the public more – and that doesn’t just mean politicians, I’m talking citizens and fans.

There are, of course, the inevitable questions that I get daily about the A’s moving to Vegas. Las Vegas has plenty of issues of its own, with the small TV market, the casino industry’s influence (they aren’t willing to take MLB games off the wagering boards, and they are opposed to a publicly-financed ballpark), and the lack of a good tentative ballpark situation (Cashman Field only holds 9,300 people and is not a good expansion candidate). Portland? Maybe, if they can get the financing details right (I have doubts about Portland’s ability to contain costs, and the mayor is anti-ballpark).

Just came back from the meeting at Lake Merritt’s Lakeside Center. There were more than 20 people in attendance, all representing different interests and community groups. The Coalition was created to give the community a voice in how $198 million in Measure DD funds should be spent. A major focus for the past year has been the Oak-to-9th development, which is currently awaiting a completed environmental impact report (EIR). One of the agenda items was the approval of a set of recommendations regarding the creation of open space at the site, to be given to Oakland’s Planning Commision, City Council, and others who could help shape the final development plan. The recommendation received all “yes” votes with three abstentions (one of which was me).

I was then given some time to open up the Oak-to-9th discussion to the subject of a ballpark, which is not in the current plans or EIR. Absent any kind of real proposal, I asked the only question that could be objectively answered by the Coalition members:

• Is it feasible to place housing (Signature Properties), open space (as recommended by the Coalition), and a ballpark on the site?

While some members refrained from rendering an opinion due to the lack of information available, many who did said a ballpark was definitely not feasible. The reasons listed were varied and numerous:

• Not enough space. Either the housing or open space would have to be sacrificed for a ballpark, and neither party was ready to give anything up to accommodate a ballpark. The ballpark itself could eliminate up to 75% of the open space in Signature’s plan, and their plan has less than the ideal amount of open space according to the Coalition.
• Traffic. The Embarcadero is a simple two-lane road that will have trouble accommodating traffic from 3,100 new housing units (6,000+ residents) alone.Adding a ballpark could add ten times the number of cars to the area, which would create instant gridlock.
• Transit. The distance from BART is a factor. Not having BART there might push fans to drive to the ballpark, which would increase gridlock even more.
• Visual impact. After I was asked what a ballpark’s footprint could be, I spouted off some numbers: 15 acres without parking, building at least 100 feet high without light standards. The response to that information was not positive, as the ballpark would significantly block the view from the freeway and parts inland, including Lake Merritt.
• Parking. There is no existing infrastructure for large amounts of parking in the development plan. Even the potential for under-the-freeway parking only yields a few hundred spaces. No open space could be used to develop parking, either.

Other comments were made about resistance to public financing (Raiders deal), Wolff’s true motives in his ballpark search (Vegas?), and the suitability of the Coliseum site (prematurely dismissed, and not for a good reason). There was also a sense that this idea was just being thrown out there without much planning, especially considering Wolff and Ghielmetti haven’t yet had any formal discussion about sharing the site.

So there you have it. These are the kinds of issues that any ballpark effort faces. While it’s easy to view things through green-colored glasses and believe that everyone likes baseball, the reality is that it is often not considered worth bending over backwards to accommodate a team or owner. And it’s clear from the meeting tonight that one or more parties, who have both been working over a year to get this project going, would have to sacrifice something significant to get a ballpark built at the Estuary. That’s not going to happen quickly or easily, if it happens at all.

I’ll have some commentary on this tomorrow.

Also, thanks to the Coalition for giving me ample time to gather comments. Considering I arrived there without advance notice, they were more than accommodating.

CoCo Times columnist Neil Hayes spent some time recently with Lew Wolff and his family at A’s games, and from all appearances, Wolff is getting more and more attached to the team with each passing day. There was little new on the ballpark front, except for a small nugget towards the end of the article:

(Wolff) envisions a new ballpark divided into “neighborhoods.”

What exactly are “neighborhoods” in a ballpark? Generally they are distinct seating areas within the stadium that give them a separate, though not necessarily segregated, feel from other areas of the park. This can be accomplished by breaking up the grandstand in the multiple structures with varying heights, as was done at Petco (San Diego), Comerica (Detroit), Citizens Bank (Philadelphia), and Great American (Cincinnati). At field level, it’s a little easier to foster neighborhood environments with the tiered pricing structure. The Coliseum, for instance, has always had distinct neighborhoods in the MVP sections which hold season ticket holders, and the left and right field bleachers, which are a younger demographic and unique unto themselves. SBC also has neighborhoods in the bleachers in straightaway left (Bonds Squad), center (family bleachers), and the arcade (party atmosphere).

The Coliseum and SBC’s development of neighborhoods was more an organic, evolutionary process than Petco, where it’s intentional. The Western Metal Supply building in the left field corner not only holds party suites, but it serves as an anchor for a party atmosphere. The Beachers section in center is the family-friendly spot with the big sandbox, while the seats that jut out into right field act as a soapbox for hecklers. Even the mezzanine club level is broken up into three sections: first base, home plate, and third base.

Whether or not the creation of neighborhoods will ultimately be successful is dependent on how fans take to the concept. A major goal is to get fans circulating around the ballpark to explore each of the different neighborhoods, sample concessions, and foster the larger ballpark community. Another goal is to get fans to find a place they can call home within the ballpark, get season tickets, commune with others in their neighborhood, and over time become fixtures or institutions as they pass the experience on to their children, grandchildren, etc. The potential upside is that those season ticket rolls may rise as a result. The downside is that the ballpark itself will have a natural sense of discontuity which might make it hard to foster an overall crowd energy, especially if fans are more likely to mill around than sit and stay focused on a game. In the end, it’s seat pricing that’s going to be the determining factor. It’s not uncommon for fans to be priced out of being full season ticket holders, which then leads to becoming partial season ticket holders, then occasional patrons, and finally to not being able to afford a game at all. It’s a difficult balance to strike, and there are plenty of examples of teams going the price-hike route (Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Giants) while few others have managed to keep prices reasonable despite having a new or renovated park (Angels).

If you want to get an idea for what the media-based discourse on a publicly-financed stadium would look like, just visit the Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s website for its coverage on the Twins’ ballpark legislation. The open-air stadium would be 75% funded by a 0.15% sales tax raise in Hennepin County.

Columnist Sid Hartman has beating the drum for the Twins’ stadium efforts for years, and he doesn’t waver with his new plea, which claims that the project will revitalize downtown. Yet there’s an article in the business section noting that the Twins have actually dropped the economic development argument.

Who’s right? Read both and decide.

Next Monday night I will attend the Measure DD Community Coalition meeting held at Oakland’s Lakeside Garden Center near Lake Merritt. Michael Ghielmetti of Signature Properties was present at last month’s meeting to discuss the Oak-to-9th development. There’s no indication he’ll be at the upcoming meeting, but Oak-to-9th will be a discussion topic. Important note: I will try to ask questions related to the general opinion of the community about a ballpark on the site, but I will in no way be in any sort of advocacy role. Why? It’s hard to rally for something that doesn’t yet exist, for starters.

Speaking of not announcing a plan, Lewis Wolff was supposed to be touring around Oakland today to look at sites, according to Dave Newhouse’s column from earlier in the week. Hopefully I’ll have something to post about that later today. Wolff himself said he won’t have any “solid ballpark information to announce for a month.”

Going back to Oak-to-9th, the Measure DD folks also posted a blueprint for Signature’s Oak-to-9th plan. It appears that I may have guessed right – the graphic I posted on Tuesday shows a ballpark on a patch of open space just east of Lake Merritt Channel. Based on what I’ve seen from the blueprint, it’s the only space left that could possibly accommodate a structure like a ballpark. The downside is it would effectively eliminate most of the open space remaining there, and that may not sit well with the Measure DD folks. I do like Signature’s use of parking under 880.

Finally, two more links on the state of the stadium-building industry, which was thrust into the spotlight with this week’s announcements of new stadiums for the Yankees and Mets.

• Bloomberg: Full-Speed Ahead for Stadium-Building Juggernaut – A good column by Joe Mysak on the stadium boom’s impact on public finance and the bond markets.
• Christian Science Monitor: Why America is seeing a new stadium boom – Ron Scherer and Anna Levine-Gronningsater recap the flurry of stadium announcements for New York area teams.

Trib columnist Dave Newhouse checked out the Estuary and came away with dreams of Chavez splash hits. He recaps the situation, though the mention of the freeway being “farther away than at the Coliseum” is a bit puzzling.

Newhouse is right about it being a 15-minute walk from Lake Merritt BART, and while Newhouse thought De La Fuente joked about putting in a trolley system, BART and Oakland did a feasibility study for Jack London Square at the end of last year. BART was ruled out because of the expense, and the alternative that emerged as the favorite was in fact, a trolley/streetcar. No option has a route that runs to Oak-to-9th, but with the influx of residents, jobs, and tourists that would come with a new development there, it would make sense to include it in the final plan.

It’s not a surprise, but Wolff has dismissed the Coliseum as a potential ballpark site, due to the previously mentioned conflicts with existing tenants (Warriors, Raiders) and lack of available surrounding land. Of course, a quick drive down Hegenberger would make one skeptical about that…

When asked about the Oak-to-9th site, Wolff declined comment and didn’t reveal information on any new sites. There are now grumblings from the those that believe Wolff is being less than upfront about his efforts, which could pave the way for an exit from Oakland.

While it’s a bit disconcerting that Wolff isn’t actively involving the public in the search, he does speak to De La Fuente every two weeks to update the situation. But even DLF can only do so much. As Don Perata once said, “No stadium project goes through without the support of the mayor.”

I’ve gotten a lot of questions on the Estuary, mostly along the lines of “where is it?” or “how close is it to BART?” To help matters, I pieced together this graphic. Points of interest including Jack London Square and Lake Merritt are clearly visible, so it’s easy to see where Oak-to-9th is in respect to everything else. The two main sections of the site are in light green (5th Avenue Marina) and dark green (9th Avenue Terminal). The pink section within the 5th Avenue Marina is the Silveira property, which is the one privately owned parcel on the site and the one which presents the greatest legal challenges (owner J.W. Silveira is suing Oakland over the inclusion of his property in the redevelopment plan).

Click on the graphic for a larger version

A quick explanation of the photo:

• The I-880 5th Avenue Overpass is highlighted in blue because it’s going to be rebuilt. Nearby land is being cleared away to accommodate the construction equipment and vehicles to be used. The freeway will be widened 40 feet to include carpool lanes, revamp local interchanges (which are considered dangerous), and seismically retrofit the span. Caltrans District 4 doesn’t yet have a project page up, but one should be expected soon. The project is slated for completion in 2008.
• Clinton Basin is also known as Seabreeze Marina, and is in poor shape.
• The only direct pedestrian links to the site are on The Embarcadero from the west and 5th Avenue from the north. Measure DD funds will allow for trails to be completed from the existing developed channel to the Estuary Park and the mouth of the channel. The areas colored brown and orange are parcels of land that will be needed for this work. They will be needed for the overpass project as well.
• There is no current AC Transit bus service or other public transportation to this site.
• The BART route is highlighted in red, with the Lake Merritt BART Station in darker red. BART becomes a subway as it heads west just before 5th Avenue. It then tunnels underneath the Laney College Athletic Fields, Lake Merritt Channel, and the Laney College main buildings.
• Walking distance from the Lake Merritt BART Station to the site is about 0.8 miles.
• Jack London Square is 0.5-1.0 miles west of the site.
• A walk from the Coliseum BART station to Gate D at the McAfee Coliseum is 1/4 mile; to Gate A it’s 1/8 mile.
• A walk from the 19th Street Station to the Uptown site is only 1/10 mile, from the 12th Street Station it’s about 1/2 mile.
• The distance from San Jose’s San Pedro Square to the HP Pavilion is also 1/2 mile.
• A ride on SF Muni’s N-Judah from the Embarcadero Station to SBC Park (2nd & King) is 1.4 miles.

Because of the numerous diverse interests that have stakes in the Oak-to-9th development, it would be foolish to predict what will happen. However, I decided to try a hypothetical ballpark drawing to see how small a ballpark could be built on the site. The result looks like this:

Positives:

• It doesn’t encroach upon the Silveira property
• It leaves the 9th Ave Terminal side to Signature
• The orientation of the field allows for a sweeping, panoramic view of Oakland’s downtown, hills and Lake Merritt (from the upper deck).

Negatives:

• The ballpark’s footprint (10-11 acres) eats into available open space, and some minimum of open space must be made available for the public. The original Estuary Policy Plan calls for a meadow to be created where the ballpark sits.
• Height will be over 100 feet at some points and may block views of the bay.

Much more to come.

Glenn Dickey reports that Oakland City Council president Ignacio De La Fuente has proposed the Estuary site to Lewis Wolff as the place to build a ballpark now that the Coliseum is not being heavily considered. The Estuary has been profiled in depth over the past few months. Check out the following links for more information:

• Ballpark concepts continued… – contains quotes from the lead developer at the Estuary
• A sample Estuary development plan – includes an overhead photo and an assessment of the site with pros and cons
• Photo Overview (PDF, requires Acrobat Reader) – for those interested in what the site currently looks like
• Signature Properties corporate website
• The Port of Oakland’s Estuary Plan (PDF) – keep in mind, it hasn’t been revised in years

I would encourage anyone who may be nearby or passing through Oakland and has time to do so to head out to the Estuary and walk around for a bit. It might stimulate your imagination. The Estuary site, also known as “Oak-to-Ninth”, can be reached directly from I-880.

Directions from:

• I-880 South, take the Embarcadero exit, make a right on the Embarcadero, which is at this point a frontage road. Drive back towards Jack London Square 1/2 mile, and it’s on your left.
• I-880 North, take the 5th Ave/Embarcadero exit, which will wind underneath the freeway, intersecting with the Embarcadero. Parking should be available on the other side of the street.
• Downtown Oakland, take Oak St south (towards Jack London Square) and past I-880. Oak will end and merge with the Embarcadero (left or East). Proceed along the Embarcadero past the Aquatic Center for 1/2 mile. The site will be on your right.

If these directions are confusing, I apologize. Look up the address “1000 Embarcadero” or “1000 Embarcadero E” in Mapquest, Google maps, or your favorite address finder.