Archives

04.10.12
by

News for 4/10/12

Now that the season has started, things are settling down a bit.

Special thanks to reader Stomper00, who rustled up four sweet tickets behind the plate yesterday and invited me to join him. I brought a buddy, we gave the remaining ticket to another fan in the parking lot, and a good time was had by all. This was the view:

Yoenis at the dish

03.07.12
by

A’s release statement on Territorial Rights

Update 9:38 PM – the Giants’ statement:

Statement from the San Francisco Giants Regarding Territorial Rights
March 7, 2012

The Commissioner has asked us to refrain from discussing the territorial rights issue publicly. Out of respect for his request, we will limit our response to setting the record straight on the history of territorial rights.

The Giants territorial rights were not granted “subject to” moving to Santa Clara County. Indeed, the A’s fail to mention that MLB’s 1990 territorial rights designation has been explicitly re-affirmed by Major League Baseball on four separate occasions. Most significantly in 1994, Major League Baseball conducted a comprehensive review and re-definition of each club’s territories. These designations explicitly provide that the Giants territory include Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Marin Counties and the A’s territory included Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The MLB owners unanimously approved those designated territories and memorialized them in the MLB Constitution. Since then, the MLB Constitution has been re-affirmed by the MLB owners – including by the A’s – on three different occasions (2000, 2005 and 2008), long after the Giants won approval to build AT&T Park. Mr. Wolff and Mr. Fisher agreed to these territorial designations and were fully aware of our territorial rights when they purchased the A’s for just $172 million in 2005.

The population of Santa Clara County alone represents 43% of our territory. Upon purchasing the team 20 years ago, our plan to revive the franchise relied heavily on targeting and solidifying our fan base in the largest and fastest growing county within our territory. Based on these Constitutionally-recognized territorial rights, the Giants invested hundreds of millions of dollars to save and stabilize the team for the Bay Area, built AT&T Park privately and has operated the franchise so that it can compete at the highest levels.

Update 5:40 PM – John Shea has reaction from the Giants:

This just came in a few minutes ago:

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

Media Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 7, 2012

STATEMENT BY OAKLAND A’S OWNERSHIP

REGARDING A’S AND GIANTS SHARING BAY AREA TERRITORY:

Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A’s cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A’s share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A’s market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was ‘fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A’s store in San Francisco.’

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A’s do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants were unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants’ great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A’s.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball.

Discuss. The emphasis is in the original release.

Added 10:29 AM – Susan Slusser has some musings.

Added 10:51 AM – Nina Thorsen is present at (and reminded me of) Oakland’s press conference regarding Coliseum City.

Updated 10:56 AM – Release updated to correct typo (“were” instead of “we”)

Updated 1:15 PM – Mark Purdy gets quotes from Wolff.

03.06.12
by

More from Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12

Update 11:27 PM – Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

These are raw notes I’m taking as we go. Voting result will be posted at the top when it’s done.

Blackwell mentioned that because teams are in various discussions with other jurisdictions, plan should also include non-stadium alternatives.

Potential conflicts of interest with one contract provided for planning and development. Decoupling was necessary. So it’s #1 ENA for master planning, #2 for EIR

Urgency. A’s are actively pursuing San Jose. There are a number of obstacles. Giants have expressed opposition. Likely a public vote.

Raiders. They’ve expressed desire to stay with a brand new facility. They are being courted by a variety of interests in SoCal. NFL has been pushing a model with multiple teams playing in one stadium, which could be pursued in Santa Clara vis-a-vis 49ers and Raiders.

Warriors – have had discussions. Are farthest away from making a move. SF has been in discussions.

Funding agreement – funds came from Coliseum Redevelopment Area. Funds are limited to affecting Coliseum area, not available outside area. Funding includes a transfer of assets (redevelopment). Legislation (AB1X26) to eliminate redevelopment indicates that such transfers may be under review. According to City Attorney, actions with third party agreements should be protected from “clawback” (reclamation by state).

Eric Angstadt in response to question by Jane Brunner – Premature to say what will be studied, but all recommended alternatives will be studied in terms of project goals. There will be a report of which alternatives are studied and why. EIR process will study alternatives that are reasonable, including (potentially) sites outside of the city.

23 public speakers – No one against, do not see Bryan Grunwald. Mayor Quan wasn’t in the Chambers initially, now is in the back corner

Chris Dobbins – Save Oakland Sports

San Jose resident argues for Coliseum City as a Raider fan.

Keith Salminen – Not just Oakland’s problem. It’s East Bay’s problem. Future of the East Bay is at stake.

Dr. Death – Humbly ask to fund the studies. Can’t forget the past. 111 years of tradition gone forever. Devastating to the economy and pride. Will be expensive, but you have to spend money to make money. Project may be eligible for $40 million in TOD funds.

Black Hole guy from Brentwood

White guy in red A’s hat and Run-TMC Mullin jersey. If you get rid of the team you get rid of a big part of Oakland’s soul. What do you have left if there’s no soul?

One dissenter, didn’t catch his name – Doesn’t want two downtown Oaklands. Wants the ballpark to be down the street near downtown. Is he referring to 980 Park? Compares situation to Las Vegas with the old Vegas and The Strip.

Bryan Grunwald is here, is given 4 minutes. Supports resolution, argues for scope to be expanded. Ask to spend money on feasibility of 980 Park. Differs with Blackwell on limits of redevelopment funds. (If redevelopment ceases to exist, do the limits matter?) If there is a no-stadium alternative at Coliseum City, why not have the stadium downtown/uptown? To put all eggs in the Coliseum basket is ridiculous and a waste of public money.

Larry Jackson reminds Council that he proposed Coliseum City two years ago.

Jorge Leon spoke once, wanted to speak again but was told to sit down by Larry Reid.

Council members

De La Fuente – Supports resolutions. Understands passion of fans. We don’t have to bargain or beg for our teams because our site is the best. The teams are an asset, but they also want to be here. Can’t forget we are subsidizing the franchises for $10 million/year. We can do better next time. We are prepared to work hard, but it takes two to tango. It’s responsible to look at the no stadium alternative. We can’t force teams to stay. Hopefully we’re sending one more message tonight that we’re willing to work with MLB. Hopefully we’ll get the same in return.

Brooks – In the last year I think we’re making moves like we’re talking to the teams in a way they understand. Refers to opening of management of contracts for Coliseum, which she started.

Brunner – Congratulations Mr. Reid. He has been pushing the Coliseum (his district) as long as I can remember. The only reason we didn’t look at the Coliseum was that the A’s were saying they wouldn’t go there. I’m in total support of this. The reason I’m interested in (980 Park) is that there’s a chance that the A’s will still come back to us and say we’re still not interested in the Coliseum. Talking to staff offline, we need to understand the feasibility of doing it over the freeway. It’s good if we know the pros and cons.

Schaaf – We all want all of our teams to stay, but we don’t totally control that. We have to be mindful that there are other people who control those decisions. There will be scenarios if one or more of those teams don’t stay. Resolution does not include that kind of language, so will ask Blackwell to include it. Coliseum City doesn’t adequately describe how big it is.

(Angstadt clarifies that non-stadium alternative will be specified in the professional services contract.)

Reid – Nobody’s spent more time on this than I have. I tried to get Dan Lindheim to see it, he wouldn’t. I tried to get Jerry Brown to see it and he wouldn’t. Thanks to the Mayor and to Jane Brunner for writing the letter to MLB.

Nadel – Constituents support 980 Park as part of study.

Reid – If we do nothing then we will lose every sports franchise in our city. When we first sat down with Lew Wolff and showed him our vision of Coliseum City, he took it down to San Jose (sic) and came up with the 66th-High Street. If we give MLB two options and MLB tells him, “Here are two options, take one or put the team up for sale,” Oakland would never be the same. (Referring to Coliseum City and Victory Court). I’m glad that someone caught the vision. I just hope it’s not too late.

Unanimous vote yes. Audience erupts in “Let’s Go Oakland” chant.

On the way out I introduced myself to Bryan Grunwald and held the door for Desley Brooks as she left City Hall. If there were any winners tonight, they were Brooks and Reid.

03.06.12
by

Oakland City Council Session 3/6/12: Coliseum City Feasibilty Study

Today’s Oakland City Council meeting began at 5:30, with the non-consent part set to start at 6:30. The last item for the night is the S-13, regarding approval of a two-part expenditure for the Coliseum City feasibility study. Here’s the item as described in the meeting agenda:

Subject: Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex From: Office Of Neighborhood Investment Recommendation: Adopt The Following Pieces Of Legislation:
1) A Resolution Authorizing An Exclusive Negotiating Agreement With JRDV Urban International, HKS Sports And Entertainment, HKS Inc., And Forest City Real Estate Services LLC, Or Affiliated Entities, For Development Of The Coliseum City Project At The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex And Environs, And Authorizing Predevelopment Funding Of The Developer’s Planning Work In An Amount Not To Exceed $1.6 Million; And
(11-0291)

2) A Resolution Authorizing A Professional Services Contract With Lamphier-Gregory And Team Of Consultants, In An Amount Not To Exceed $1,900,000, For Services Related To The Oakland Alameda Coliseum Complex And Environs And The Oakland Airport Business Park Specific Plans And Environmental Impact Report Without Return To Council
(11-0291-1)

The Coliseum City plan is actually divided into two project areas. Area 1 is the Coliseum complex and several adjacent pieces of land, including the HomeBase acquisitions and parcels in between the complex and BART station. Area 2 is much of the land on the other side of the Nimitz, which includes Zhone among other pieces. The total expenditure of $3.5 million is relevant to Area 1, because item #1 is for the planning aspect and item #2 is earmarked for the EIR work.

Approval of the contract will give the respective parties 12-18 months to complete their work. That does not mean that further EIR work won’t be required. Any new buildings, such as a third sports venue, hotel, or office building(s) will require at the very least a supplement onto the plan EIR. It’s possible that if a new Coliseum were to replace the old one without an additional ballpark or third venue, a supplemental or additional EIR wouldn’t be needed. It’s not really worth discussing further until Oakland has to cross that bridge.

In keeping with other large scale planning and EIR work, I expect that we won’t see a draft document for at least a year. If the stakeholders, including the pro sports franchises, are interested and willing to play ball, we could see action regarding a deal after that point.

I’ll be at the meeting at 6:30 or so. Hope to see a lot of sports fans there. I’ll update this space as news comes.

Update 6:41 PM – Arrived. Council has item S-11, Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan, up right now. Below is a picture of the Council Chambers.

20120306-184411.jpg

Quick observation: Mostly Raiders gear in the not-full crowd, with a smattering of A’s and W’s garb. Obviously there’s overlap.

Update 7:04 PM – Coliseum City item is now up! And there are 43 speaker cards! Settling in. Wait, they’re dealing with the strange Desley Brooks teen center matter first. That item (S-10) has the 43 speaker cards. No hope of getting out of here before 9.

Update 8:16 PM – Quote of the night from a speaker yelling at the City Council meeting: “SHOW ME WHERE THE PROBE IS!!!!”

Update 10:08 PM – FINALLY the teen center thing is over. At least a third of the audience has left. Now it’s on to Coliseum City. 25 speakers, mercifully. This should be a slam dunk. Assistant City Administrator Fred Blackwell is describing the project.

03.02.12
by

Parsing the Kings Arena term sheet

.

View from the northeast has realigned rail lines and platforms to the right, original train station on the other side of the arena. Does the arena look like Staples Center? If it does it's probably no coincidence.

Late last night, the long-awaited nonbinding term sheet and working report for the Sacramento ESC (Kings Arena) were released to the public. The term sheet itself is 18 pages long, so thankfully the City included a two-page summary. From reading the entire thing, I took away a few items.

Breakdown of contributions to be made by the various stakeholders

  • There’s still a lot to figure out. While the term sheet clearly spells out the initial contributions to be made by the Kings ($73.25 million) and AEG ($58.75 million), there’s no sense of what rent either party will pay to the City. That detail doesn’t have to be revealed until April 15.
  • A new item, which has surfaced in the last few weeks, is the requirement of a 1,000-space parking garage near or adjacent to the arena. It appears that AEG requested this in order to satisfy potential premium seat/suite buyers. The garage will cost $25 million to build and will be funded by a combination of City downtown improvement funding (MOPA) and money from developer ICON-Taylor. The catch is that AEG is committing to leasing all of the spaces for the duration of the arena lease.
  • Predevelopment costs will cost $13 million, with half of it paid by the City and 25% shares to the Kings and AEG.
  • AEG and the Kings will split possessory interest (property) taxes, though it appears that those funds will be used to service debt (PILOT).
  • The NBA All Star Game will be held at the arena within three years of opening.
  • The team name must be “Sacramento ____”.
  • The 5% ticket fee on Kings events would be part of the Kings’ ongoing contribution, a corresponding fee on non-Kings events would be part of AEG’s contribution.
  • The Kings would get “net parking revenues” for games, the City would get that revenue from non-game events.
  • An additional $1 facility fee would go towards a capital improvements fund.
  • Power Balance Pavilion would cease to operate once the new arena started operating.
  • Opening date target is September 2015.
  • The EIR is expected to be completed in 12-14 months, though that partly depends on whether the arena has its own project-level EIR or is folded into the Railyards EIR as a supplemental piece.

For me, the most surprising news is the greater planning stuff. As part of previous plans for the Railyards, the tracks were to be realigned away from the train station, so that they form a sort of triangle framed by the new tracks to the north, H Street to the south, and 7th Street to the east. The arena is meant to fit inside that triangle. As you can see from the aerial shot below, some of the infrastructure has already been built, such as the platforms and new bridges for 5th and 6th streets that will extend over the tracks.

The realignment means that if you want to access the tracks from the station, you’ll have to walk under the width of the arena to do so, some 800-900 feet. It’s strange and perhaps a bit taxing, but kind of cool when you think about it. Light rail will remain adjacent to the old station.

Now that we know the upfront contributions and what the City expects/hopes to get from selling its parking revenue, we know what’s really at stake: $255 million. That’s the amount that the City is pledged to provide if the project moves forward. If the City can get $230 million upfront ir projects is the present value of parking revenue, then everything lines up. Just in case it doesn’t, the City is considering floating normal revenue bonds for the project. Over 30 years at 7%, that comes to $18 million per year. The City, with help from Sacramento County, is moving money around to protect against the project hitting the General Fund. Parking revenue provides around $9 million per year to the General Fund. To its credit, the City has listed the various project revenue sources that will be used to offset that $9 million. That includes the aforementioned 5% ticket tax revenue, the City’s parking revenue from non-King events, and various other sources. Where the math gets fuzzy is that if the Kings are getting the parking proceeds while they’re playing, that’s a huge chunk that isn’t going to the City ($2.64 million). Plus there’s the other $9 million that will be needed to service the debt. Is all of that to be provided by the Kings and AEG?

I have some confidence that in the coming months, the stakeholders will be able to whittle away at the doubts and come up with solid, if not airtight, plan. The City is expected to vote on the term sheet next Tuesday, which gives them little time to review it. Fortunately, no serious commitment needs to be made for at least another 10 weeks, while the lease details are worked out. Unfortunately, that’s also how the 49ers plan was put together. To be continued…

01.29.12
by

At FanFest

I’m in, credentialed and good to go. Line wrapped from the arena entrance down through the north VIP parking lot. Gates opened at 10 sharp. I’m heading to the clubhouse tour right now. At 11 I’ll meet folks inside the entrance and to the right, where the Warriors inside ticket booth is.

20120129-101407.jpg

Update 12:50 – The retired player panel (Rudi, Tenace, Blue, Hatteberg, Justice) fielded a question about a move to San Jose. Many boos rained down. Rudi spoke up, saying that the Coliseum was ruined by the return of football (followed by applause) and a plea that the A’s need a ballpark, whether it’s in Oakland or not. Very diplomatic answer.

20120129-154156.jpg

20120129-154303.jpg

20120129-175320.jpg

01.19.12
by

2014 revisited

Two weeks ago, we laid out the possibilities for the A’s as a team-in-limbo at the Coliseum for 2014. In today’s Trib, reporter Angela Woodall got comments from principals from Alameda County and Oakland, the A’s and Raiders. Try as I might to find a proper analogy for this increasingly awkward situation, I simply can’t. So we’ll go with the comments instead.

A’s President Mike Crowley said he sent what he considered a fair lease extension proposal in June that was met with a “convoluted” response from the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, which oversees the municipally owned complex.

“So that ended that conversation pretty quickly,” he said. “If we can’t work something out here, we’ll have to find somewhere else to play.

“There are not many options. But we have time. We’re here in 2012, and we’re here in 2013.”

Always eager to open mouth and insert foot, Ignacio De La Fuente “contributes” to the discussion:

“The reality is they’re the ones who have a timeline, not us,” said De La Fuente, referring to the 2013 deadline and the lack of alternatives to the O.co Coliseum in the Bay Area.

That’s strange. The A’s are the only ones with a timeline? Didn’t MLB want the A’s playing in a new venue by 2015? Comments like that and Mayor Jean Quan’s suggestion that Victory Court could be acquired and entitled by November 2014 (making a 2015 opening impossible) aren’t going to convince MLB that Oakland is really serious about this. Couple that with the ongoing discussions with the Raiders, and you get the sense that the A’s aren’t exactly the highest item on the priority list among the Oakland-based sports franchises.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Oakland has little incentive to renew the lease at terms similar to what the teams are paying now. Both teams pay around $1 million each season with some additional revenue thrown in for good measure, not nearly enough to take care of the $20 million in debt service (equally split between Oakland and Alameda County), not to mention the $500k in field conversion costs. The Coliseum Authority is right to angle for more money to cover debt service and costs, but they can’t get too aggressive. If they try to hike the rent to $5 million or more, the A’s will have to consider whether that’s a good deal as opposed to the opportunity cost of improving an existing stadium somewhere else. They’ve already done it at Buck Shaw, adding 3,500 seats and improving the facilities for $4 million. My guess at this point is $3 million for either the A’s or Raiders for 2014, and an option year if new stadium complications arise. That’s a fair amount given the market conditions, which are favorable for Oakland in the short term but not favorable in the long term.

The Raiders are a factor in this as well. Movement in the direction of a new stadium somewhere as opposed to improving the existing Coliseum makes temporarily sharing the Coliseum less impactful for the Raiders. At least the Raiders have an existing NFL stadium option should talks sour with the Coliseum Authority: Candlestick Park. In 2010 the 49ers extended their lease at The ‘Stick through 2014, allowing for a smooth transition to Santa Clara if all of the funding lines up properly. Coliseum City would displace both teams for at least two years (perhaps on a staggered schedule), making it even more difficult to accommodate the A’s and Raiders sufficiently.

Several Oakland officials, including former City Attorney John Russo, have said that the A’s have misrepresented themselves and their intentions when getting the last two extensions signed in 2007 and 2010. That argument never held water to me, because there was always a termination fee that the A’s had to pay if they left Alameda County. If that isn’t an acknowledgement of the situation, I don’t know what is. The Raiders have a similar clause in their lease, yet they aren’t getting vilified nearly as much for talking to/about Santa Clara and Los Angeles. I suppose it all comes down to what the parties care about – getting a deal done as opposed to having good optics about potential deals. If both teams leave Oakland, optics won’t matter one iota and the chickens, in the form of voters, will come home to roost. Then again, maybe not? I suspect there is a large percentage of the populace in Oakland that will be thankful that the City didn’t get screwed Mt. Davis-style all over again. That day of reckoning is drawing closer.

01.08.12
by

Oakland focuses on EB-5 program to replace redevelopment funding

We now know how Oakland will replace all of those lost redevelopment dollars: Foreigners! At least that’s the program according to today’s Trib report by Angela Woodall.

Before I go further, I have to give credit to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan for going this route. It has some potential, and it’s something that we’ve discussed on the blog previously as it pertains to a foreign investment in a new Sacramento Kings arena. While it’s unfortunate that neither she nor the City Council have had the “adult conversation” I argued for in the post, at least Oakland’s been resourceful enough to identify a path forward.

It makes sense for Oakland to look for creative, out-of-the-box methods to attract investment to the City, and the federal government’s EB-5 program is one of them. Quan has gone to China to look for investors, and may be onto something with EB-5. The program allows immigrants a green card if they put $1 million or more into a new or “troubled” American businesses. Investors also have to create 10 full-time jobs with each application. That money requirement goes down to $500,000 in the case of rural or high unemployment areas, Oakland being one of the latter. Pool enough of these together and a company may have enough capital to move forward.

The Bay Area Regional Center is a government-certified investment firm whose charter is to bring in foreign investment under the EB-5 program. Its service area is most of the Bay Area and Sacramento. Yet the projects it identifies as most ready for investment are three in Oakland. That’s not surprising because BARC is based in Jack London Square, with one of its principals being Oakland developer Jim Falaschi. In fact, BARC is trying to bring in nearly $70 million for Signature’s stalled Oak-to-9th project. (Signature is also trying to get Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to build its next campus there too.) The Trib article notes that BARC was involved in the $8 million Tribune Tower deal, though records of actual foreign investment in the project are murky. An admission that BARC “is still looking” for a project 2 1/2 years after opening, while honest, is not encouraging.

That’s not to say that EB-5 programs don’t attract investment. Chinese investors put $249 million into the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, though that money didn’t go directly into the Barclays Center arena. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, $1.5 billion has come into the U.S. from foreign investors through EB-5. Like any government program, it’s rife with bureaucratic delay. Applications have often taken months to process. One report this week indicates there are some kinks to work out as the program grows. It can be difficult for foreign investors to separate the good investments from the poor ones based on sales pitches from needy businesses who could easily inflate their projects’ potential.

As cities start to look for alternate avenues for investment, the market for foreign investment will start to get competitive. For Oakland, the biggest issue may be, well, Oakland. Foreigners can understand investing in New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. They also get things like ski resorts or wineries. Oakland, for obvious reasons, is a tougher sell. It’s possible that Oakland will need to claim multiple success stories before they can attract enough investors for a major project like Coliseum City. There’s still the problem of getting team owners and leagues to buy in. They’re the head while the foreign investors are the tail. Every application is an investment, not just $500k for a green card. It’s going to take a lot of selling – and even more believing – for Oakland to pull off major funding with EB-5. Or as economist Scott Barnhart, writing for EB5info, wrote in response to a NY Times editorial:

For example, if the 34 floor tower typically used for retail, office space and/or residential purposes did not qualify in New York, one can be assured that states with the highest unemployment levels are not likely close substitutes for a Manhattan address for either the developer or prospective investors, so this project would likely be shelved. Similarly, a large condominium in Florida will not sell if located in a high unemployment area away from the coast instead of a lower unemployment area on the coast, yet the labor will be imported to the site.

There’s a reason why O29 isn’t taking off. And it’s the same reason why Victory Court and Coliseum City probably won’t take off either. It’s still worth a shot, at least from the City’s perspective.

Finally, the EB-5 program is limited to 10,000 approved visas per year, potentially limiting investment. Compared to going the regular (and now shuttered) redevelopment route with its self-contained process, EB-5, with all of its marketing, multiple stakeholders, and delay, may be tantamount to climbing Mt. Everest.

.

To read more about EB-5, check out the EB5news site and Twitter feed, and EB5info.

01.05.12
by

News for 1/5/12

Not the busiest week. Some news is coming in.

The Dodgers and MLB will start entertaining bids towards the end of the month. So far eight groups have been emerged:

  • Orel Hershiser, Steve Garvey, and pet food magnate Joey Herrick
  • Peter O’Malley
  • Fred Claire, Ben Hwang, and Andy Dolich
  • Dennis Gilbert, Larry King, and Jason Rees
  • Mark Cuban
  • Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten, and Mark Walter
  • Joe Torre and Rick Caruso (Torre quit his MLB executive position to be the frontman for the bid)
  • Time Warner

It should be competitive. In addition, Judge Leonard Stark is expected to rule next week on whether the Dodgers’ future TV rights can be sold with the team. For those thinking one of the losing groups could easily pick up the A’s if Lew Wolff is denied San Jose, I have to bring it up again: it’ll cost at least $400 million for the team (when including the premium) and $500 million for a ballpark (privately financed, of course). If Mark Cuban is balking at the Dodgers’ price tag at $1 billion, why would he put $900 million into Oakland? These guys aren’t in it to lose money.

More news:

  • Lowell Cohn provides a counterpoint to my appearance on Athletics After Dark. Or a vitriolic diatribe. You decide.
  • Governor Jerry Brown presented his new budget today, which would eliminate 3,000 jobs and consolidate numerous agencies.
  • Redevelopment agencies are set to officially shut down by February 1. Legislation is in the pipeline to extend that deadline to tax day, April 15. Good luck with that.
  • The replacement railings being installed at Rangers Ballpark will cost the team $1.1 million. They’re part of a $12 million package of improvements, much of them located in the outfield area.
  • The Minnesota Vikings’ lease at the H.H.H. Metrodome ended with their last game of the season. They have said that they will not move forward with a lease renewal unless they get state help on a new stadium. The Vikes continue to tout their Arden Hills plan, while also looking at stadium sites closer to downtown Minneapolis.
  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to reclaim Manhattan’s Javits Convention Center in order to allow for redevelopment, while allowing a developer to build a replacement convention center at the old Aqueduct race track in Queens. Matthew Yglesias wonders what the value proposition is for building the really large facilities, as opposed to the smaller ones often included in hotels.
  • The SF chapter of the Sierra Club filed a second appeal against the America’s Cup waterfront project, halting construction until a hearing for the appeal is held later this month.
  • Added 1/6 1:00 AM – Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal takes a look a development in the area between HP Pavilion and the ballpark site.

That’s all for now.

12.29.11
by

Taking stock as the post-redevelopment era begins

It’s never too early to declare winners and losers that were made as a result of today’s earthshattering news.

First the losers:

  • Backers of the Victory Court site. The site was heavily dependent on tax increment (redevelopment funds) to buy the land and pay for improvements. Now that’s out of the question.
  • The City of Oakland. Strategically, it chose to sit back and wait for the originally passed “pay-to-play” ransom plan, which was scuttled today. Now they not only have no way to do redevelopment, they’re stuck trying to figure out how to fill in major holes that have just opened in the City’s budget that were filled by a large redevelopment operating budget.
  • San Jose Redevelopment Agency. As far as old school redevelopment goes, the City is now handcuffed with no way to raise funds. Of course, the City had already been choking the life out of SJRA by finishing several projects, laying off staff, and not taking on new projects. One word: prescient.
  • Affordable housing advocates. Not directly related to stadium building, but it’s a big point of emphasis for redevelopment backers. And consider this: any large mixed-use plan including residential development in any major city in California would require an affordable housing component. Who’s gonna subsidize that now? Already, San Diego is looking for a legislative means to bring back a scaled down version of redevelopment with a focus on affordable housing.
  • Oakland Raiders. Any options the Raiders may have been considering elsewhere in Bay Area (aside from the Coliseum and Santa Clara) have to be considered nonstarters at this point.
  • Redevelopment agency employees. Many agencies had planned for the “pay-to-play” scenario. This is armageddon. Good luck to them.
  • Anyone with a downtown gentrification initiative. Those projects are now for the birds.

The winners:

  • Lew Wolff and Baseball San Jose. If Wolff and his people were secretly rooting for redevelopment to wither and die, they certainly weren’t showing it. But the decision today has such wide ranging, powerful effects on municipalities throughout the state, that’s it’s easy to envision Lew Wolff sitting in his office, thinking, Okay, that narrows the field. With the MLB panel’s report distributed prior to today’s news, they probably laid out several scenarios, and the owners have to be aware by now the ramifications – if not by the panel’s report, then by the news reports. And that plays right into Wolff’s plans. If there was ever a tipping point event for a decision on San Jose, this is it.
  • San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed. It was Reed who oversaw the winding down of SJRA and the creation of SJDDA (SJ Diridon Development Authority) to sidestep the state raid. There may be a legal challenge against SJDDA, but where will it come from? The State doesn’t have the resources to start going after dozens, if not hundreds of redevelopment agencies. Santa Clara County might, but it seems the County got what it wanted by having redevelopment eliminated. Everything else is a matter of negotiation. As noted before: prescient.
  • San Francisco 49ers and Santa Clara. They got their tasks done before the end of the year. Now it’s a matter of selling suites and seat licenses, plus getting the Raiders on board.
  • Your local municipality’s General Fund and local schools. While the State will get a portion of the newly realized tax increment, part of it will be returned to cities, counties, and school districts. For cities with very large redevelopment areas such as San Jose and Oakland, this could actually mean a windfall of sorts, or at least a way to shore up their budgets. How much will it help? That’s for the bean counters to figure out.
  • Governor Jerry Brown. The beautiful irony of this situation is that Jerry Brown used redevelopment in Oakland as a stepping stone to get him back in power in Sacramento. Now he’s killed redevelopment. That’s an experienced politician.

Too early to tell:

  • San Francisco Giants. The death of redevelopment may tip MLB in the A’s favor. Then again, it may not. One thing to consider: the Giants overtures towards the Warriors about getting an arena in Mission Bay may be negatively affected by the ruling.
  • Backers of the Coliseum City plan. The Coliseum is part of a separate joint-powers agreement which allows the Coliseum Authority to raise money for its own projects. The track record isn’t great (Mt. Davis) but the power remains. Still, Coliseum City came about as part of a major planning and redevelopment initiative in and around the Coliseum and Airport. Now at least half of that project has been rendered irrelevant, which could have cascading effects on the Coliseum. On one hand, the Coliseum could be considered one of the only places with land where something could get done. On the other hand, the Coliseum is still pretty much limited to contributing site and infrastructure improvements, with little ability to contribute directly to any new facility or refurbishment. It’s also at the mercy of private developers to flesh out Coliseum City, which given the area, is definitely not a given.

It was hard enough getting something built in California with the state of the economy. Now, if you don’t at least have something already underway or an existing facility or land from which to base improvements, you may as well not show up. Redevelopment as an industry is over. Now bring on the new industry of “creatively” financing traditionally redevelopment-oriented projects.