Field of Schemes
sports stadium news and analysis

  

This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.

May 10, 2007

Wolff to ask for $250m in subsidies?

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff held a conference call with reporters yesterday in which he dropped more hints about his $450 million Fremont stadium plans. Highlights, with translations for the layperson:

"We're trying to identify various forms of assistance ... Hopefully, we'll come up with a financing plan that everyone finds acceptable. ... We're intending to cover all the net costs."

Translation: "Net costs" means that there are "gross costs" that Wolff won't cover - ones, presumably, that he claims aren't really costs because taxpayers would recoup their investment by increased revenues. Taking his dubious economic consultants' conclusion that the project would bring in $18.6 million a year in new tax money, then, we can guesstimate that Wolff will be asking taxpayers for up to that figure in annual subsidies - or roughly $250 million worth of stadium costs.

"We're meeting with the [city] staff on a consistent basis. I think [a proposal is] probably a few months away."

Translation: We want to hash out all the issues behind closed doors, and then and only then we'll present a plan that we think will pass the city council. Those guys in New York did it right.

"We have a plan B if we run into certain things. [But] our goal is to be in Fremont and stay in Alameda County."

Translation: If some of you sportswriters want to scare locals into thinking we might move to Las Vegas, I'm not going to complain.

Wolff also announced today that he's signed a contract to purchase the site of the proposed stadium, which should be no surprise to anyone, given that he was supposedly "close to completing negotiations" for it all the way back last April. Still, it's always nice to give the headline writers something to ooh and aah over.

COMMENTS

So an sports owner comes up with a fiscally responsible privately financed stadium plan and you complain. Is there any kind of stadium plan you would support? I mean seriously, you pull that 250 million figured literally out of a hat because that would be the MAXimum he could ask for. Yet you assume that is exactly what he'll ask for. Add to that the fact you don't highlight the fact that this will not cost Fremont taxpayers a cent, be it their tax money, general fund money, or bonds.

Posted by Dan on May 11, 2007 05:39 PM

fiscally responsible?????

wolff has never said how he intends to pay for the stadium - only that he prefers to negotiate behind closed doors and doesn't want a public vote on it. no wonder ... what taxpayer would vote yes on this ill-conceived plan that will dip into the taxpayers' pockets for untold millions in the years to come ... a plan that adds to an already mess of a traffic nightmare on the bay area's worst freeway by far ... without a plan for convenient public transportation. this plan is a complete and utter disaster ... wolff is trying to decieve everyone.

Posted by jack b. on May 11, 2007 06:18 PM

He has repeatedly said it will be paid for with a combo of selling the commerical/residential land around the stadium (about 140 acres worth) after it is rezoned. And from recent polls they've taken well over 60% of Fremont taxpayers (myself included) support the stadium plan.

And again I don't see how anyone can say Fremont taxpayers are going to "suffer" because of this. They've already said, both Wolff and the city, that no tax, bond or general fund money is going to be used.

As for access to the site, 880 is actually a fast moving freeway during the commute once you get past the Mission Blvd bottleneck. I know, I drive it daily at 6:30 pm. That bottleneck will cease to exist long before the stadium is finished. The site has 3 freeway access points (one more then the Coliseum) and will have minimal impact on Fremont city streets as the surrounding area is largely empty industrial land. Add to that Wolff's comments that he wants to build a connector to the forthcoming Warm Springs BART station and the site being next to the ACE and Capital Corridor train lines and I think your transit fears are being blown WAY out of proportion.

Posted by Dan on May 11, 2007 07:05 PM

Dan, that's simply not true. Wolff has said time and again that he's going to ask for public subsidies, though he's been coy about exactly what they'll look like. See, for example:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2006/11/as_to_seek_taxi.html
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2006/01/as_owner_to_see.html

If Wolff changes gears and says he won't ask for tax money, I'll be the first to applaud him. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Neil on May 11, 2007 10:03 PM

I guess this is where you and I see it differently. He's asking for subsudies on HIS taxes. The ones HE has to pay. He's not saying he won't pay taxes, he's not saying he's going to take money the city currently has or will continue to bring in. He just wants some breaks on his taxes, and frankly, I'm all for it. Considering the land the stadium will be sitting on is empty, and has been so for 20 plus years earning NOTHING for the city, they could forgive him all his tax responsibilities and I wouldn't have a problem with it. The income the retail and other commerical and residential owners who eventually are living/working there would generate will more then make up for any tax breaks given to Wolff during his short ownership of the land. Remember, 140 acres give or take will eventually be generating far in excess of any figure yet given by this or any site. (And I take anything I read here with a grain of salt since they have an agenda to push).

Posted by Dan on May 14, 2007 01:27 PM

Taken to the extreme, though, that argument gets kind of silly: If I didn't buy things, the city wouldn't get any tax money, so I shouldn't have to pay sales tax. If I quit my job, the IRS wouldn't get any tax money, so I shouldn't have to pay income tax. How come Wolff gets to make this argument when the rest of us don't?

As for the new taxes generated "more then mak[ing] up for any tax breaks given to Wolff," if he asks that the city kick back to him all incremental tax revenues - which is certainly what he's hinting - then by definition, the new taxes will exactly equal his tax breaks. The city, meanwhile, would still be stuck with the increased cost of fire, police, schools, roads, water, etc., to support all this new development, since none of those are covered in Wolff's accounting (see: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2007/05/as_fremont_stad.html).

Posted by Neil on May 14, 2007 01:49 PM

Even if taken to the extreme though, you're forgetting Wolff has offered to pay Fremont 1 million annually to cover the cost of police, fire, and the construction of water. The cost of continuing utilities to the site will of course be the responsibility of the tennants just as you and I pay our power bills.

Posted by Dan on May 14, 2007 07:40 PM

From the Merc News story in the last link I just pasted:

"That last figure includes a $1 million annual payment the report says the A's would make to the city. The report, however, did not attempt to evaluate how much the city would have to spend each year to provide services such as police and fire protection to the new development on land now zoned for industrial purposes."

I can't find anywhere that Wolff is claiming the $1 million a year will be enough to cover the cost of new services.

Posted by Neil on May 14, 2007 10:52 PM

Can we all agree that Neil isn't as important to NYC (or wherever) as Major League Baseball is to Fremont? :)

Posted by anon on May 15, 2007 02:38 AM

He doesn't claim it will cover the entire cost of police and fire coverage, but when you consider that one mil will cover ADDITIONAL coverage the site would need it makes sense. Remember, that site is already covered by existing police and fire coverage. One mil won't cover everything, but it will cover any additions needed for the site when it is further developed beyond its current state.

Posted by Dan on May 15, 2007 02:22 PM

Latest News Items

CONTACT US FOR AD RATES