Oakland gives Raiders another 90 days to turn pockets inside-out hoping stadium money falls out

You’re going to have to hold your breath a little bit longer to see any start at a resolution of the Oakland Raiders and A’s bipartite stadium battle: After the Raiders brought in some new investors to their Coliseum City vaportecture project, the Oakland city council last night voted to give the team a 90-day extension in which to finalize plans for a new stadium on the Oakland Coliseum site.

And that should be no problem, because as Newballpark.org points out, here’s all that Raiders owner Mark Davis has to work out to make his vision a reality:

  • Sign at least one tenant, preferably the Raiders to start

  • Engage the A’s and Warriors (even though neither team is interested)

  • Provide deliverables and reports that haven’t been completed yet (deal terms, financing, 2nd phase market analysis)

  • Bring in a master developer

  • Line up needed capital for stadium phase and ancillary development phases

  • Figure out who pays for the remaining debt at the Coliseum and Arena (if necessary)

  • Gather support of the JPA and Alameda County

Piece of cake! Three months is way more than enough time to win $750 million at Powerball, right?

 


56 comments on “Oakland gives Raiders another 90 days to turn pockets inside-out hoping stadium money falls out

  1. Its people like you and ML at new ballpark that keep Oakland down! With your snooty comments “power ball” really? this is a great project and we are now starting to see some progress.

    Oakland has transformed into the cultural center of the bay area and soon will be the high tech center with so many startups moving into Oakland.

    I am sure there is a way to get any funding gap covered: tax hotels, car rentals, bart trips to the airport, etc.

  2. “I am sure there is a way to get any funding gap covered: tax hotels, car rentals, bart trips to the airport, etc.”

    I’m sure there is. Should it be?

  3. Yes it should, we waste tax payer money on many things why not this one?? At least this will give Oakland something to be proud of. Major league sports have become expensive and real folks, who are the fans, can not attend. A project like this will not only bring in jobs but give the 99% a chance to attend games.

  4. @wolf Please come down. It has proven that staduim don’t bring economic development to the area only in the staduims. The staduims are for the upper middle class that are lucky to attend a game. So it is not for everyone unless you consider concession workers as paid attendees

  5. “I am sure there is a way to get any funding gap covered: tax hotels, car rentals, bart trips to the airport, etc.”

    Good luck getting any of those past the voters or the city council. Only way to fund these projects is privately in the Bay Area. And so far none of the 3 big money developers they’ve brought in have thought this project will pan out financially. This latest sucker will come to the same conclusion.

  6. Count me among those puzzled at why the Raiders would want to build a new stadium that would require them to lower ticket prices.

  7. Wow guess $2 tickets to A’s games and $30 tickets to raiders games is to expensive.

    What would those lower priced tickets look like?

  8. This is were you are wrong, we the citizens of oakland will approve the tax hikes. As long as it keeps our teams in oakland! Our grassroots organization has held fund raisers to raise funds to keep our teams in oakland. Many local politicians have attended and pledged their support. We have used the funds to support our local officials.

    Yes mayor Quan and other members of the city council have told us that one of the requirements for the funding that oakland will provide. Will be to give local citizens tickets at a discounted rate, in order for the tickets to be affordable to the disadvantage citizens of oakland.

    Our community has always supported the A’s, Raiders and Warriors even though many of us can not afford to attend games.

    Why should other cities get free stadiums? Why not us?

  9. “Why should other cities get free stadiums? Why not us?”

    They’re not free – that’s the point of this whole blog.

    A more accurate statement would be:

    “Other cities have saddled their future generations with stadium debt…why not us?”

  10. With the revenue generated by the entire project the debt from the 1994 Raider move will be paid off. Any cost over runs will be the responsibility of the developer. Oakland will only provide a certain amount of funding and then reap the benefits of this project.
    Past mistakes are in the past, moving forward the mayor and the council will make only deals that benefit oakland, no matter what ML or Neil say!!

  11. @Wolf:

    Are you either:

    A: That naive
    B: That dumb
    C: Both

    Name ONE of these recent “economic catalysts” that has actually fulfilled the fantasy financial projections claimed by the teams and their owners.

    Oh, the teams usually make out ok; it’s the taxpayer that takes it in the shorts.

    Couple of questions: If this is such a great project, then why not let the citizens of Oakland vote on it?

    And if all these stadium projects are such great deals, then why on earth do these teams and their owners need the help? If the numbers work so well they ( team/owners) shouldn’t have any problems raising the needed financing privately.

    We’ll wait…

  12. And I would be very careful about believing promises of discounted tickets — other cities (see: Brooklyn Nets) have extracted similar promises, and the cheap seats end up being very few and hard for anyone in the general public to get access to. Likewise promises that the city will get paid back its investment and reap rewards — all too often the repayment and the rewards alike turn out to be via things like increased “economic activity” that economists find doesn’t even measure on things like sales tax receipts.

    I would love nothing more than for the Raiders and A’s to find a way to build a billion-dollar-plus stadium complex that pays back its costs and lets everyone, public and private, win. I would also love to see a perpetual motion machine that can be built for free and run forever, eliminating the need for fossil fuels. All available evidence is that both are about equally likely.

  13. “Why should other cities get free stadiums? Why not us?”
    This, people, is what we’re up against. To the average person these stadiums seem like they pay for themselves. The cost is spread out among so many people, that most don’t notice the hit to their wallet. An associate in San Francisco was telling me he didn’t care if it cost the average taxpayer $50 or $100 per year to build an arena for the Warriors. He felt that was an acceptable/realistic price to pay for the immeasurable benefits of having a sports team around, given the going rates.
    Neil, what does the average taxpayer spend a year in some of the worst scenarios, like Glendale and Indianapolis?

  14. @Tom G you mad bro??

    California has started a trend! As much as it pains me Santa Clara and the 49ers have a pretty good deal, it seems that their projections have been fulfilled and the city is not exposed or saddled with debt, thats from articles on this blog.

    I believe that Oakland can do the same, crate a deal thats a win win. And if Oakland has to contribute a significant amount of funds the citizens are ok with that.

    If it needs to be put to a vote, lets put it to a vote. We are confident it will pass, our grassroots origination along with the commissioner of the port of Oakland have conducted a poll. Out of the 250 registered voters in East Oakland we found that 70%+ supported public funds for a stadiums for all 3 teams. Its a small sample size but we are encouraged.

  15. WolfofPiedmont,

    It remains to be seen what happens in Santa Clara. Let’s wait a few years and see how the SA is doing (that is if its books are ever opened to the public). Presently the team is making sure the city council election comes out its way and is even trying to influence the school board election so that they get a “friendly” board that will allow use of school grounds for soccer matches so the team can use the soccer park adjacent to the stadium for parking. The city belongs to the 49ers now and that’s not a good situation to be in.

  16. The Raiders will move to the Alamadome in San Antonio in the 2015 NFL Season. The Chargers & Rams will get last minute stadium deals done before the 2016 NFL Season and then the Washington Redskins will be relocated by Dan Synder after the beltway takes away the trademark rights away in full.

    After that Dan Snyder will move the team to Los Angeles allowing him to change the team name and be in the #2 media market while Baltimore Ravens fill in as the team for the Baltimore-Washington, D.C.-Virginia markets appetite for NFL football.

    The NFL then has a new city in Washington, D.C. to dangle over the countries head and cities that support it for more corporate welfare for the teams to get when it comes to these negotiations.

    “How can the NFL not being in Los Angeles?! It’s the #2 media market!” Blah Blah Blah.

    Soon it’ll be…

    “How can the NFL not be in our nation’s capitol?! This is crazy!”

    Just wait and see.

  17. Where is the “analysis” here on the new group of investors fronted by Floyd Kephart? What are the credentials of Kephart who is fronting this possible infusion of cash? What is his track record? Does he have a history of success & is someone to take seriously? By looking into Kephart, one could get an idea about the odds of newballparks so called bullet points 3-5. The SF Chronicle columnists Matier & Ross have noted the new investor has ties to Davis, doesn’t that increase the odds of bullet point 1? Fan organizations close to Oakland politicos (who say Dubai investor is still interested), have been told Davis met with investors (where at least 500 million is being added to the 400 million already promised by Raiders/NFL) & Oakland officials on the very day of this latest announcement. Money talks & the Coliseum location (mass transit infrastructure largely already in place) is ripe for the picking as the Silicon Valley Tech industry continues to spread (See SF Biz Journal, Oct 21 article) into the Tri-Valley area.
    I find it difficult to see the newballpark website as non-biased against Oakland. For years he has been posting San Jose has a bigger population than Oakland, but ignores Oakland’s advantage of higher urban density within the city limits & bigger metropolitan population base. In fact, Marine Layer (ML) (author of newballpark), just yesterday took another cheap shot at Oakland, by pointing out Mesa, Arizona, has a bigger population than Oakland, when any fool would know the metro area population of Mesa pales in comparison to Oakland’s & consequently the post is pure mockery. I’ve referenced this website for years, but if it is going to make a habit of using ML as an arm of its research, then I’ll know to be aware of a built in anti-Oakland bias.

  18. No, the track record of the new investors isn’t really that relevant here. The question is whether the Coliseum City project can pencil out, not where it would get its capital from.

    And newballpark.org isn’t an “arm of my research,” any more than any other blog or news site that I link to. If you have a problem with the list of unresolved items I cited from there, let’s hear it. Otherwise, please take it outside.

  19. “No, the track record of the new investors isn’t really that relevant here. The question is whether the Coliseum City project can pencil out, not where it would get its capital from.” Uh, don’t investors ONLY get involved when they see the potential for something to “pencil out”? As I said, tie Kephart’s background into the equation to get an “analysis” (part of what your website is about) of the bullet points. With this new investor group, we need to broaden our awareness to get a better idea of how they’ll answer most of those bullet points.

  20. Everyone seems to be forgetting the past history of replacing the Coliseum. The goal of the elected officials is to keep kicking the can down the road. As long as neither the A’s nor the Raiders move, then they will keep providing money for studies and promises but nothing will get built.

    That hasn’t changed. This 90 day window is nothing more than another 3 months of kicking the can down the road. This will be followed by more studies or more preliminary plans.

  21. Why is there so much “hate” going on ? Do you all live in east oakland? are your tax dollars at risk. I can answer the questions “NO”.
    I understand MLs hate he is mad at oakland for dragging their feet on the A’s. But you all??

    The post makes some valid points but I believe the new investors have been working with the city on all that before this announcement was even made.

    There are a lot of “Techies” moving to oakland from sf due the the high cost of living, we should tax any one who is making more than $100K to pay for some of the funding gaps. I believe that this will allow the city to raise enough funds and not have to use any general fund money. The citizens will vote for this, since a huge % of them don’t even make $40K a year. We could also tax tickets, parking and merchandize.

  22. Can’t speak for everyone, but I know I don’t hate Oakland — I actually lived there, briefly, 30 years ago. And I’d love for the A’s to find a solution to stay there long-term, as there’s a strong fan base there and, as you note, the East Bay is only going to get more people with disposable income as SF runs out of space. (I guess I hope the Raiders can stay too, but since pro football I *do* hate as a glorified celebration of brain trauma, I have a hard time caring much about that.)

    That said, finding money to build stadiums is *hard*. At least, if you don’t resort to just soaking the public and not worrying about how they’ll be paid back, as most team owners end up trying to do. Yes, there are lots of ways you could find to raise half a billion dollars or so in taxes — but even if you think those people (rich techies, BART airport riders) deserve to pay, you end up coming back to the problem that *then it’s half a billion dollars you could spend on something else other than a sports stadium*. And a sports stadium — especially a football stadium, not because of the brain trauma thing but because of the only-eight-home-games-a-year thing — is, nearly every economist agrees, just about the worst thing you could buy for your city outside of maybe that Simpsons monorail.

    Not all arguments come down to “Where do we want the stadium built?” The purpose of this site is to talk about stadium and arena plans, and the ways in which cities are often snookered into subsidizing them in ways that they’ll never earn back. If the Raiders and A’s have a plan that won’t require being propped up with massive gifts of either cash or public property, that would be awesome. But until we see an actual financing plan, and not just some pretty pictures, there’s no way to credit them for something they haven’t done yet.

  23. I think it’s almost time to move on from here WolfofPiedmont, if you call someone who is pro-Oakland perspective “dumb” it is a “borderline” insult & the comment doesn’t get deleted. Also, the ML crowd has moved in (” at WolfofPiedmont – Elmano, is that you?”) with their tunnel vision & dismissive mantra of not considering the potential big picture, because of their anti-Oakland bias. Mark Davis didn’t want to share a stadium with the 49ers, so he most certainly will not want to share in LA. Yes, he could cash out to LA buyers, but his blood is silver & black, so letting a part owner (as presented in SF Chronicle) or someone who he has done business with in the past get a bigger chunk (and a growing asset over time) of ownership makes sense. Cash out at 1-2 billion….maybe. Hold onto control of the franchise for another 25 years (he’ll be pushing 80) increases the odds of his net worth, while still being a part of his beloved Raiders is likely his preference. Right or wrong, the gentrification of Oakland, is a statistical reality & those with a big enough vision (Lew Wolff is dismissive because owns property by his San Jose dream) see the potential (Silicon Valley has grown & on the outskirts of Oakland) to be ahead of the curve in this area with huge upside. Is Kephart’s group track record a strong one & do they have a track record for taking on huge projects? Sadly, the answer apparently won’t be analyzed here or at new ballpark, for it’s easier to point out what everyone knows has to be done, rather than look into how & why it can be done.

  24. Thanks Niel on being on point why this site was created for. Taxes should only be used for positive economic activities and for the public good. I don’t see private stadiums and arenas being use for the public good especially owners reaping the benefits of the taxpayer while teachers are getting cut, police and firemen are being layoff, garbage pickups being reduce and streetlights being turnoff due to funding issues. Oakland needs first to fix thier priorities- poverty, crime, rundown school system, economic inequality and poor amtrak service into the city, joking about the last one. Let the raiders leave they have been a burden to taxpayer and all they can show for is one SB appearance since they came back while the county is paying debt for the ugly structure of Mount Davis

  25. “Are you that dumb?” and “You mad, bro?” are both borderline personal attacks — in fact, they’re pretty much the same insult. They’re borderline because they’re not quite saying “You’re dumb!” and “You’re crazy!” but rather implying that the things the person is saying are dumb and crazy … like I said, grey area.

    I thought I’d leave them both in and just say “settle down” so everyone could see what not to do, but if you want it that way: Next person who steps one millimeter over the line gets their comment removed. Both dugouts have been warned.

  26. Does the fact that Floyd Kephart has worked with the NFL in the past to bring a Super Bowl to St. Louis matter at all? Part of his biography at Renaissance website states: “Floyd has worked on major corporate, financial structuring or marketing projects with over 50 major clients including: Columbia/HCA, Sony, Sega, Chrysler, Volkswagen, NBC, ABC, Radio City Music Hall, NFL (Super Bowl), Branson, Mo.”

  27. Phil Anschutz has built more development projects than Satan, and used to own half of MLS, among other things. None of that has helped him build a stadium in L.A. when the revenue wouldn’t be enough to pay off the costs.

  28. Why can’t they go back to the old days when owners build their facilities. I forget that politician started this trend to become major league cities in the 50s to say to their constituencies ” look what I did”

  29. Ken – I think it’s a stretch to say Kephart worked with the NFL just because he worked on the Super Bowl with them. It doesn’t list how extensive the project were and what lengths his communication with the NFL was.

    Keep in mind these are not really the ‘investors’ – they are simply the overglorified financial project managers who are challenge with finding real investors to put up money to spend on the stadium and related stuff.

    With that being said, we dont even know if this will be cost-effective for the city of Oakland. Mt Davis still has debt on it and it is not even being used.

  30. I believe the first public funded ballpark/stadium was Cleveland Municipal Stadium (The Mistake By The Lake). A badly designed public works project that the Cleveland Indians refused to play in and then only played weekend games. Finally they moved in full time.

    I believe that was the first…

  31. I enjoy all the complicated NFL move predictions, though it is interesting that the overall trend is with teams having to resort to some rather creative accounting to “sell out” their stadiums, particularly in the pre-season.

    For all that sports radio likes to talk about the NFL team, there’s more and more evidence that people don’t really want to put up with going to the games in DC. Other cities have the exact same problem, except when the team is great, which really isn’t that often.

    In this environment, it is increasingly hard to justify “investing” in an NFL football stadium when the evidence suggests that the crowds will be smaller and the TV/internet viewing audience taking a larger share. At some point, we could probably play the game without a crowd at all.

  32. ALK you are right but the Tribe was not going to move out of the city for a new stadium and the revenues that it was going to give to the team like the A’s Giants,Dodgers,Braves twice in a 15 yr span leaving Boston to Milwaukee and Atlanta, Browns now the Orioles. Then let’s not start with expansion

  33. @Neil thank you for your on point comment. That is what this blog is about, just sometimes the comments don’t reflect that. As soon as any “positive” slanted comment is posted it gets attacked. It seems that the comments should just say “all ideas are terrible, they are fleecing taxpayers, your an idiot if you don’t agree with that”

    Yes cities should focus on “teachers are getting cut, police and firemen are being layoff, garbage pickups being reduce and streetlights being turnoff due to funding issues.” but that does not mean that they should not TRY to get something done. Such as looking at major projects that can have a long term impact, in many different ways, for residents of an underserved community.

    The sad reality is that if you put initiatives on a ballot for higher taxes for funding for teachers, police, fire etc.. it will be voted down. But for a stadium it won’t ha!. Go figure.

    But if this proposal can be a win win or even a slight loss to the city I am all for it, east Oakland needs this.

  34. Hate to break it to you but a stadium ballot initiative will get shot down in Oakland and/or Alameda County just as much as any other tax increase would. Particularly given the disdain so many folks in Oakland and AlCo have for the whole concept after the Raiders fleeced them in 1995. If Davis and Wolff want to play they’ll have to pay. And in the latter’s case, Wolff will seemingly only play on his terms which the city doesn’t want to do yet.

    Maybe they will after they realize the Raiders aren’t going to be able to address these issues in 88 days and move along to LA or San Antonio.

  35. The Raiders should of helped build and shared the stadium with the 49ers in santa clara. But that ship has sailed, as Ken says its well known that Mark Davis does not want to share.

    I had many conversations with Amy Trask, since we both volunteered for the same community organization, she was a Raiders executive put in charged of stadium development. The only real option she concluded was to share the stadium in santa clara, but that idea was not well received. For many reason including the public persecution that the Raiders needed the 49ers to build a stadium. That really irked Mark Davis, any way she was fired since her and Mark Davis could not agree on the direction of stadium development.

  36. And as a result he’s now sitting on a stadium plan $500 million in the hole in Oakland minimum, is flirting with San Antonio, and is reportedly also considering sharing in his long desired actual home of the Raiders down in LA. Honestly it never looks quite like Davis knows what he wants beyond wanting someone else to pay for it. He may find that in San Antonio’s government or in being a secondary team/partner in LA to either AEG or Kroenke. He’s not going to find that in Oakland. Oakland isn’t going to fund his dreams, particularly not when he and his father haven’t given anyone in Oakland reason to care about the Raiders in 12 years (and have done a ton to antagonize the city with the continuing stadium debt they saddled the city with along with the accompanying lawsuits his father filed against the city).

  37. “There are a lot of “Techies” moving to oakland from sf due the the high cost of living, we should tax any one who is making more than $100K to pay for some of the funding gaps.”

    That’s a remarkably honest example of “I would really like something but I want someone else to pay for it”. And it appropriately echoes the reason owners demand subsidies. We could argue the nobility of the sentiment but kudos for not hiding behind nonsensical “It will be great for the community!” arguments.

  38. @Dan that is the thing, your perspective on Mark Davis is dead on, I can’t argue with that. But we can forgive and move forward. Mostly all of the members of our grassroots organization know what Davis is doing but we are here to help him, if he wants to stay in oakland we should find a way. Whats it the past is in the past, lets move forward.

    But maybe its football that so popular, that an owner can produce a terrible team and like you said “antagonize a city” but the city and the citizens will still back him. I don’t get it, but from the polls we conducted support for the raiders is very high.

    @Keith Like Neil said there are many ways to fund the gap, but i think voter initiative to raise taxes on areas that can afford the tax hike and the hike does not impact the residents of underserved communities in oakland will pass.

  39. WolfOfPiedmont, Do you have any examples of that actually working in any area?

    If I was a techie company and I had plans to move to Oakland, why would I move there when I know my employees are going to get taxed extra for making more money? You seem like a good guy that is very emotional and compassionate, but this is all about business.

    Mark Davis doesn’t want to pay for a stadium
    Oakland doesn’t want to add further debt for a stadium.
    Mark Davis can sell portions of the Raiders at a “LA” value and still be an owner of the team – maybe a silent one. Even as a minority/silent owner in LA, it will still be valued more than being a half owner in Oakland.
    88 days is not enough to get all of those things established.
    There is no ‘secret’ billionaire/sugar daddy in Oakland ready to open up a checkbook to make everyone’s dreams come true.

  40. ‘I am sure there is a way to get any funding gap covered: tax hotels, car rentals, bart trips to the airport, etc.’

    ‘Why is there so much “hate” going on ? Do you all live in east oakland? are your tax dollars at risk. I can answer the questions “NO”.’

    Oh man, that is some fantastic cognitive dissonance going on between those two sentences. Granted, they were in separate posts, but still…

  41. From D Lion: Ken – I think it’s a stretch to say Kephart worked with the NFL just because he worked on the Super Bowl with them. It doesn’t list how extensive the project were and what lengths his communication with the NFL was.
    Indeed, that is my point D Lion, we need more information from an investigative journalist in order to get a better analysis. Otherwise, though some may think they know better, we’re all left to speculate.

  42. With the type of politicos running for mayor in Oakland and the citizens that support them, it seems they want the opposite of “Oakland doesn’t want to add further debt for a stadium.”

    Seems to me from the articles in the local paper, the pro Oakland crowd, and the politicos adding debt is not that big of an issue.

  43. Ken – I see your point. However, sometimes you don’t need an investigative reporter to get a “deep” understanding of what’s going on. It’s obvious that this guy is not a ‘mover and shaker’ with the NFL as say – the guy who the NFL appointed to oversee LA. He is virtually a financial project manager whose company is responsible to get other investors in place to fund a major project. Based on that understanding, yes, he will have some level of connection with the stakeholders.

    Guey- To me it sounds like every politician and Oakland resident is focused finding someone else to pay for Coliseum City. They want the Prince of Dubai, an unknown investment firm, people who are moving in for employment. It’s obvious if the residents were willing to pay, then they would have voted to increase taxes on themselves last year and paid the 500m funding gap of the Raiders proposal and then let Lew Wolff and the corporations develop the other end of the CC. But… we are getting to 2015 and nothing has happened.

  44. I’m an investigative reporter, but investigation is generally outside the scope of this website unless you guys put *way* more money in the tip jar. If I can get a paying assignment to look into this, then I’ll certainly be looking into Kephart.

  45. “If I was a techie company and I had plans to move to Oakland, why would I move there when I know my employees are going to get taxed extra for making more money?”

    First off, people generally don’t pay income taxes where they work, but where they live. (Unless they live in another state, but nobody’s going to commute to Oakland from Nevada.) So if Oakland were to have higher taxes than Emeryville or something, it might make some people move their residences from Oakland to Emeryville, but it’s unlikely to affect where business open.

    Secondly, even then, income tax rates are generally way, way down the list of how people make decisions on where to move themselves or their companies. Several states have imposed “millionaire taxes,” been warned that this will cause all the millionaires to vote with their feet, and then discovered that millionaires don’t really care that much about a couple percentage points of income tax if it means having to change the address on all the monogrammed stationery.

    None of which has anything to do with whether it’s a good idea to spend income tax hikes on a stadium. But the well-off have proven to be pretty resilient when it comes to a moderate tax soaking.

  46. Guey, luckily any of the half baked politicos running Oakland still have to take any stadium tax to the voters where it will very quickly die. But even the crackpots running Oakland aren’t stupid enough to suggest such a tax in the first place.

  47. D Lion/Neil – I agree that the effects of such an income tax would be muted. IIRC only one California county has its own income tax: San Francisco. SF can pull that off, Oakland can’t. Plus it’s a sure fire way to get immediate opposition from the more likely to vote residents of the Oakland hills, as opposed to the folks in the flats. And speaking of taxes, Alameda County is wrestling with a second try to pass a 0.5% sales tax hike for transportation. Money from that project is integral to getting Coliseum City off the ground. Last time it barely missed the super majority threshold. This time it might barely make it. Even if it does that leaves little political wiggle room for an additional sales tax, income tax, or other revenue source besides assessments that might help fund Coliseum City.

  48. @ Neil – regarding taxation, in California sometimes it doesn’t matter what county you live in – it matters where you work. Both residents AND nonresidents of San Francisco County pay the 1.5% tax rate for any income earned in SF County. This is probably why you see so much business in Daly City, Colma, Brisbane and South SF.

    FWIW – Stadium taxes have come up to the ballot in the South Bay in the past, and have lost convincingly.

  49. In an ideal scenario, at least from my chair, the Raiders would go to LA and the As would develop the land as agreed upon a few weeks/months ago.

  50. “Yes it should, we waste tax payer money on many things why not this one??”
    Maybe we should strive to stop wasting taxpayer money? This whole “Well Tommy got one, I want one too!” mentality needs to stop. From the sounds of it, you’d think the Raiders played in a landfill. Ridiculous.

  51. “In an ideal scenario, at least from my chair, the Raiders would go to LA and the As would develop the land as agreed upon a few weeks/months ago.”

    And according to CM Rebecca Kaplan and reporter Mark Purdy Wolff has a plan ready to go he’s shown some members of the county and is ready to swoop in with it when they finally accept that this Coliseum City plan with the Raiders is never going to happen. Meanwhile Wolff like a smart business man is keeping his options in San Jose open should Oakland not give up the already failed dream that Coliseum City represents and let the Raiders go.

  52. I miss the old days, when you could just count on Al Davis to do something nuts. Now we’re all supposed to pretend the Raiders know what the fuck they’re doing.