August 21, 2010

Vegas mayor promises MLB team for some, miniature American flags for others

Oscar Goodman has been mayor of Las Vegas for 11 years, and in that time probably his most defining characteristic is that he's never met a sports franchise he didn't like. (And that's saying something, given that this is a guy whose Wikipedia entry includes an entry for "Controversies: Thumb amputation and caning.") He's publicly wooed the Montreal Expos, Florida Marlins,San Diego Chargers, and Pittsburgh Penguins, all without the barest hint of where these teams would play if they relocated to Vegas.

Still, even Goodman had never done what he did last week: told reporters that he was in "very serious" talks to built a 45,000-seat domed stadium and that Las Vegas had been "designated an American League city." By whom, Goodman wasn't saying — I'm pretty sure the last time baseball divvied up territories by league was during expansion discussions in the early 1960s, so it'd be pretty bizarre for MLB to revive the concept now.

Baseball business observers likewise greeted Goodman's pronouncement with skepticism, noting that MLB says it doesn't intend on moving any teams across state lines anytime soon and that Vegas doesn't really need a baseball team to compete with the casinos as an attraction.

Still, even merely hinting that he was going to lure a major-league baseball team was enough to get Goodman's name in the papers — and even got our old friend Zennie Abraham speculating that clearly it's the Oakland A's headed to Nevada. Which doesn't seem very likely, but if it does happen — even if in the year 2050 — Goodman was vague enough that he'll be able to claim credit. That's always a good way to pad your Wikipedia entry, and nobody even has to lose their thumbs.

July 29, 2010

San Jose agrees to stadium vote delay

As predicted yesterday, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed has agreed not to put an Oakland A's stadium vote on the November ballot, conceding to MLB's demand that any referendum wait for the league's relocation commission to first issue its ruling on whether the team can move there. A vote could now happen in the spring, or later, depending on when the issue of territorial rights to San Jose is hashed out.

Reed defended his "vote first, ask questions later" gambit as "a way to help get the process moving, to try to get them to act more quickly," while city council member Sam Liccardo called MLB commissioner Bud Selig's offer to pay the cost of a spring vote "the first indication that the league is inching closer to a decision on territorial rights." Whatever makes your glasses look half-full, guys.

The San Jose Mercury News' Mark Purdy, meanwhile, reports on several rumors flying around about the MLB negotiations now underway:

One thread is that Selig has been working with the bankers who loaned the Giants money to build AT&T Park, making sure their obligations will be met if the A's move. Another thread is that Giants' owner Bill Neukom is threatening to have his team's sponsors sue MLB if the A's move. (The Giants themselves can't sue baseball because it's forbidden under MLB's antitrust exemption, so Neukom must find surrogates.) Yet another thread has MLB threatening to contract the A's out of existence and pay off Wolff.

Concludes Purdy: "None of these threads may be true. All may be true. But until there's a resolution, the crazy ride will continue." As Brian Pinhead was fond of saying: "One thing's for sure — no one knows."

July 28, 2010

MLB offers to pay for San Jose A's referendum if it's delayed

Apparently Bud Selig really doesn't want San Jose jumping the gun and holding an Oakland A's stadium vote before MLB has decided if the team can move there. Yesterday league officials told San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed that they'd pay the $1 million-plus cost of holding a special election next spring, if the city agrees to put it off until after MLB's relocation task force has finished its report.

Reed hinted yesterday that he'd be amenable to such a plan, saying, "I want to think about it, and talk to [A's owner] Lew Wolff, and he and I and [MLB president] Bob DuPuy will talk again." The San Francisco Chronicle's political gossipmongers Matier and Ross say they expect an announcement today that San Jose is putting off the stadium vote.

So, it seems like this whole kerfuffle will likely go down as a bit of gamesmanship to push the A's situation to a conclusion, though from here it's hard to say exactly who's behind the game: Reed, who was apparently frustrated that an August 3 deadline for putting a stadium on the November ballot was nearing, and DuPuy was on vacation and not returning his phone calls? Maybe Wolff, who yesterday again expressed frustration with the slow pace of MLB's decision-making process, saying, "It's been 16 months, and I have 130 employees who need to know where they are headed"? We probably won't know the full story until DuPuy writes his tell-all book about what's really going on inside those meetings (or email exchanges, or Farmville chat sessions or however they're exchanging ultimatums these days) between Wolff and San Francisco Giants owner Bill Neukom.

July 23, 2010

Selig "disappointed" San Jose moving ahead on A's without him

Okay, so much for my theory that Bud Selig secretly gave San Jose the go-ahead to move ahead with a stadium vote in order to pressure the Oakland A's and San Francisco Giants into reaching a territorial rights settlement. Selig responded to the news of the potential San Jose referendum today by saying he was "surprised and disappointed" that Mayor Chuck Reed wants to set a November vote on a stadium plan, stating, "We were not part of the process and had no knowledge that a decision to proceed with the election had been made. A ballot referendum is premature."

Unless, of course, Selig just wants everyone to think he doesn't want San Jose to have a vote. But then, the Giants owners would probably know he knows they know he knows...

San Jose mayor: Damn the MLB report, full speed ahead on A's deal

Some people just can't be patient: San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said yesterday that he'll ask the city council to put an Oakland A's stadium referendum on the November ballot at its August 3 meeting even if MLB's long-delayed A's relocation committee hasn't reported back by then on whether the A's would be allowed to move to San Jose.

While there's certainly nothing stopped San Jose from voting on a stadium before a move is approved, this could get tricky. The finances of any deal are likely to change depending on what settlement the A's and San Francisco Giants can reach over territorial rights to San Jose. And while the finances of the stadium construction are more or less set (the team pays for the stadium, the city pays for land and infrastructure), so far as I know no lease terms have been discussed — leaving open the possibility that the city could be asked for lease concessions if needed to fill any funding gap created by the A's having to pay reparations to the Giants.

Interestingly, MLB seemed to send a signal that it wants San Jose to move ahead with its plan, if you assume that the "highly placed baseball source" cited by the San Jose Mercury News was an intentional leak:

But even as Reed and other city leaders have fretted that time was growing short for MLB to revoke the Giants' territorial rights, one highly placed baseball source told the Mercury News the league was unlikely to wade into the issue without ironclad assurances the plan could go forward.

"Part of the problem is, [A's owner] Lew [Wolff] doesn't have San Jose sewn up. It's not like there's a stadium ready to be built," said this person, who refused to be identified because he isn't authorized to speak for the league.

"If there was an approval, that could make a difference. It's hard to say, 'OK, Lew, you can have it,' and then have them go through the voting process and end up losing."

So maybe Bud Selig's new plan is to have San Jose up the ante by approving a stadium, then use that as leverage to get Wolff and Giants owner Bill Neukom to hash out a territorial rights settlement? Could be, unless the high-ranking baseball source is just this guy.

July 21, 2010

Wolff to Selig: How long, o lord?

That Lew Wolff letter making eyes at San Jose may be of unknown provenance (see comments), but the Oakland A's owner has emerged with some fresh quotes making clear his feelings about his team's future home. From today's San Jose Mercury News:

"Baseball appointed a committee 16 months ago to check out if there are opportunities we missed in Oakland or Fremont," he said. "I'm still waiting for the results."

The committee appointed by Commissioner Bud Selig will recommend whether the A's should move to San Jose or stay in Oakland.

As for specific proposals from the city of Oakland, Wolff added, "I have not heard word one of any detailed plan. I was asked to sit back and let them do their work. Well, 16 months later I haven't seen any results. Maybe Oakland has and they're not telling me. I don't know why they're hiding it."

The Merc News somehow interprets this as re-opening the door a crack for an Oakland stadium bid, but my tea-leaf reader says it's just Wolff trying yet again to put some pressure on Selig's committee to release its report already so everybody can get on with their lives. Which, Wolff no doubt knows, isn't going to happen until he's cut a deal with San Francisco Giants owner Bill Neukom on the cost of territorial rights to San Jose — which is no doubt why Wolff's allies have been publicly bashing Neukom in an attempt to get him to come down in price.

Meanwhile, the A's relocation battle has taken to the Oakland Coliseum bleachers, as a fan there tells the Merc News he was kicked out of a game earlier this year for holding a sign that read "Wolff lied. He never tried." City attorney John Russo responded by ordering the Oakland police not to assist in ejecting any A's fans for displaying anti-ownership signs. On second thought, maybe it's best if Selig's committee takes its time — this whole mess is getting too much fun to watch.

July 16, 2010

Wolff to fans: Sorry, East Bay stadiums didn't work out

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff issued a public letter to fans on the team's website on Wednesday, saying he wanted to "offer some information that I believe may be of interest to you." The information in question: a long defense of the team's stated desire to move out of Oakland, preferably to a new stadium in San Jose.

Wolff's argument, once you strip out all the bits about GM Billy Beane being a "top individual in [his] profession" and how the A's almost made it to the World Series in 2006:

• We tried to build a new stadium in Oakland or Fremont, but that didn't work.
• "We fully recognize that our efforts to secure a competitive venue must be privately financed."
• In Oakland or Fremont, a privately financed stadium would have required "residential entitlements" — or as they're better known, development rights to build condos. However, "under current economic conditions, the residential entitlement concept has been rendered unavailable due to the prolonged recession and sharp decline in demand for residential housing." Translation: Nobody in their right mind wants to build condos in California right now.
• The San Francisco Giants' AT&T Park is really beautiful. And (mostly) privately financed. And "within walking distance to millions of square feet of commercial office space, extensive residential accommodations and huge amounts of hotel and convention facilities." There's no place to build anything like that in Oakland.

The clear implication, though Wolff doesn't explicitly mention the city by name, is that San Jose could offer room for AT&T-style development nearby. How that'd take the place of the revenue Wolff was hoping to get from condos, though, isn't clear, since all he'd be getting would be 14 acres of land on which to build a stadium. (Also not ever specified: Why or whether the A's would be better off financially in a new stadium, especially if they'd have to foot the construction bill themselves.)

And, of course, there's still the question of how much money Wolff would need to pay off the Giants for invading their MLB-sanctioned "territory." MLB commissioner Bud Selig promised this week that his blue-ribbon commission would issue its report on the matter "soon," but he's been saying that for a year and a half now, only strengthening speculation that the report won't come out until the Giants and A's have agreed on a price.

Selig did, at least, say that the threat of folding the A's (or the Tampa Bay Rays, if their stadium campaign falls through) is off the table, saying "we have moved past" the threat of contraction. The threat of relocation, though, is always in play.

June 11, 2010

Bay Area papers: Oh wait, 49ers stadium finances don't work after all

Now that the San Francisco 49ers' $444 million in stadium subsidies from the city of Santa Clara has been approved, everybody is jumping to say that the private side of the deal looks increasingly uncertain, possibly enough to cause the whole thing to collapse:

• Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News says there are "no guarantees" the 49ers can line up $493 million in private money, given the lousy economy. Meanwhile, the grim naming rights market (that is, outside of websites looking for some quick media exposure) means the city could have trouble raising its $330 million &mdash though as Roger Noll pointed out last week, the "cart before the horse" nature of the stadium plan means the building would be in the ground before the naming-rights shortfall became apparent.
• San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that the Santa Clara plan is "built on shaky economic ground" and that "San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home" — adding, in an apparent attempt at hardball: "But we will not wait forever."
• Noll tells the New York Times that in his assessment, "there's only a 50 percent chance that it gets built" in Santa Clara.

Of course, everybody's just guessing right now, but "up in the air" seems a fair assessment of the Santa Clara stadium plans. The bigger news from the Times article, came in this tangential bit at the end about Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff inviting a fan who wants to keep the team in Oakland into his luxury box for a chat:

Mr. Leon and his friends talked with the A's owner from the third inning on, at first hardly noticing that Dallas Braden was on his way to pitching a perfect game. Mr. Wolff left in the seventh inning, pulling on an Earthquakes jacket as he walked out of the suite.

That's right: The owner of the Oakland A's apparently left a game in the 7th inning when his pitcher was pitching a perfect game. I'm not taking sides in the issue of where the A's should play, but this should certainly give Wolff a leg up in the race for worst owner in baseball.

UPDATE: The A's fan site newballpark.org has now picked up on this exciting controversy, insisting that Wolff typically heads down to the box seats around the 7th inning, and so didn't miss out on Braden's perfecto. More updates to follow after the surveillance video has been analyzed by the NSA.

June 04, 2010

A's settle lease crisis by re-signing ... oh, wait, there wasn't a lease crisis

Bowing to the reality that nobody's going to build them a new stadium in the next ten months, the Oakland A's exercised their one-year option to remain at the Oakland Coliseum for 2011.

Again, this isn't really news — what were they going to do, go play in the street? — and I almost didn't even both posting about it. But it's worth noting for one reason only: It's a reminder that just because a lease is expiring does not mean that the team is about to leave if it doesn't get its way in stadium talks — teams can, and frequently do, sign year-to-year extensions. Indeed, an expiring lease can be as much leverage for a city as for the team — after all, the team needs to play somewhere, and there's nothing stopping a public stadium owner from saying, "So, you need a home, huh? Well, we'll let you stay put — if you agree to a new ten-year lease. And pay the first two months' rent in advance as a security deposit."

Not that it ever happens like that, but it's no more ridiculous than teams insisting that an expiring lease is a crisis that requires immediately legislative action.

May 05, 2010

A's say they're not to blame for disappearing fans

The San Francisco Chronicle has taken notice of the Oakland A's attendance woes, with fewer than 9,000 tickets sold for Monday night's game (and even fewer actual fans in the seats). Who's to blame? Chronicle reporter John Shea sticks the blame squarely everywhere:

• The Oakland Coliseum is "antiquated."
• The team "hasn't been in playoff contention since 2006" (though he fails to mention that at the moment they're actually one-half game out of first place.
• Fans have been driven away by owner Lew Wolff's description of the Coliseum as "despicable" and his subsequent insistance that he wants to move the team to San Jose. (A's reliever Brad Ziegler even tweeted that "A's fans boycott our games [because] ownership has threatened to move the team" and "the lack of fans gives them all the more reason to seek other alternatives for a new home city," though he later clarified his remarks.)

The A's marketing chief retorted that the team is too trying to draw fans, noting that they only charge $5 for a beer. Though it can't be helping that the team is kicking out the few fans they have when they bring in signs critical of the owner.

April 29, 2010

Oakland: We really really really want to keep A's

Not be outdone by San Jose, the city of Oakland looks ready to throw everything it has at keeping the A's in town, starting with economic impact studies:

The study, commissioned by the nonprofit group Let's Go Oakland, claims that building a new 36,000-seat, $500 million baseball-only stadium in the city's Jack London Square area immediately would create 1,661 new construction jobs in Oakland while also generating about $2.6 billion in total economic activity for the city over the next 30 years.

"We really need and want the A's to stay in Oakland," said City Council President Jane Brunner. "The real reason we need to have the Oakland A's is for economic development."

Ah, "economic activity," the last refuge of the economic development consultant. As I've discussed here previously, this just adds up all the money changing hands in your city, regardless of who's spending it and who's receiving it — so that if the A's double ticket prices, that's not a horrible ripoff of Oakland fans, but rather a wonderful boost to "economic activity," notwithstanding that the people actually receiving the bulk of the cash (the A's owners and players) don't live in town.

I've only begun to dig into the report itself, but it looks like the more meaningful economic projections — actual fiscal impact to city tax revenues — are reserved for the final chapter, where a new stadium is estimated to generate $19.8 million a year in added city taxes, for a total 30-year present value of $273.7 million. The problem here: A chunk of those tax revenues (sales taxes, parking taxes) would be in part cannibalized from other places (if locals spend more on A's parking, they have less to spend elsewhere in town), while the biggest chunk, taxes from increased property values, is awfully speculative, given past problems with tax-increment financing districts.

(And yes, before anyone writes in: There's some argument that Oakland has more to gain than the average city, given that a lot of fans come from neighboring municipalities. But that only reduces the cannibalization problem, it doesn't eliminate it.)

As for job creation, actual permanent jobs created would be in the 1,000 range — meaning that if Oakland were expected to kick in even 20% of the stadium cost, its per-job cost would be above the craptacular $100,000 mark. Council president Brunner might want to come up with a better "real reason" — maybe something about wanting Oakland fans to be able to see Brett Anderson before he blows out his elbow. Oops, too late!

April 27, 2010

San Jose A's land costs hit $72m and rising

MLB commissioner Bud Selig's Oakland A's relocation task force still hasn't issued its recommendations, but that's not stopping the city of San Jose from buying up land for an A's stadium, if a move to San Jose is approved (and the A's owners can afford whatever payoff MLB deems necessary for the San Francisco Giants' territorial rights). The city has already spent $24 million assembling about half of the 14-acre site, and the total cost, including new roads and infrastructure, is now expected to exceed $72 million.

Notes the San Jose Mercury News:

San Jose must contend with private property owners hoping for a bonanza in a down market. Others may not want to sell, raising the unpleasant prospect that the city's redevelopment agency might ultimately have to seize their land. And it is still unclear where the agency will find all the money the ballpark site and roadwork are expected to demand.

The Merc News describes the current landowners as "homes, mom-and-pop businesses and a gas supply company that sits roughly where center field is envisioned." Asked if the city would use eminent domain to seize property, John Weis of the city's redevelopment agency demurred: "We are going to negotiate the property acquisitions."

The city is planning to buy up the property whether the stadium happens or not; if not, it plans to build retail space, offices, and possibly housing. To replace the current retail space, offices, and housing. That should be an interesting eminent domain hearing...

March 31, 2010

San Jose voters love the A's, if they don't have to pay

A poll of 532 registered voters in San Jose has found that 62% approve of providing free land for an Oakland A's stadium so long as tax money isn't used for building or operating it. Which is the stated plan, though as more than a few folks have noted, A's owner Lew Wolff doesn't exactly have a great track record on transparency in his financial plans.

In related news, that SFGate blog rumor that approval of an A's shift to San Jose was imminent was debunked hours later by Susan Slusser of the very same site, who reports that A's officials haven't heard anything about this, and that "I had checked in with a reliable source at Major League Baseball yesterday and was told that nothing is imminent on the report, it's still some way off and the panel's working is continuing." In the battle of the unattributed sources, I'm going with the ones that at least have their workplaces IDed.

March 30, 2010

Blogger: MLB report will send A's to San Jose

This barely rises to the level of rumor, but: Former Oakland city economic advisor-turned-San Francisco Chronicle blogger Zennie Abraham reports this morning that Bud Selig's Oakland A's stadium commission will report back within three days, and will recommend that the team be moved to San Jose.

Abraham's source? "A source." No indication even of whether this source is "close to the negotiations" or anything, as Abraham spends most of his blog item arguing that moving the A's would be a mistake, given their "Worldwide" fan base. (Which would make sense, as the franchise has already played just about everywhere in the world.)

That Selig's Gang of Three would recommend San Jose as an A's destination, if true, wouldn't be surprising, given its further-ahead stadium deal and relatively untapped market; the bigger question remains what price Selig will make A's owner Lew Wolff have to pay to the San Francisco Giants if he wants to get a deal done. Is Rob Neyer right that the commission report won't be released until Selig has worked out a deal acceptable to all parties? We could maybe find out this week — unless, as Abraham insists, "MLB elects to delay the release of the report after this blog post." It takes a clever blogger to take credit for predicting things that don't happen...

March 24, 2010

Neyer: No A's decision until Selig has the votes

ESPN's Rob Neyer, as usual, has a cogent take on that never-ending Oakland A's relocation study:

It should be 29-to-1; you can hardly blame the Giants for wanting to keep the A's out of San Jose. But it's not 29-to-1, because some of the other clubs are afraid of setting a precedent, and also because the Giants (presumably) have some favors they can call in. And despite the impression you might sometimes get, Bud Selig can't just do whatever he likes.

It's been a year (and counting) not because Selig's committee can't come up with a reasonable recommendation regarding the future of the Athletics. It's because Selig knows what that recommendation is (or will be), but hasn't yet been able to garner the support from enough owners to implement the recommendation.

March 23, 2010

49ers face suit, Quakes need sponsors, A's report still on hold

Much news from Santa Clara County:

• A former Santa Clara mayoral candidate has sued to block the June vote on building a new San Francisco 49ers stadium. Deborah Bress charges that the ballot language is misleading and hides the project's true costs; given that this issue has been raised before, if nothing else it'll be interesting to see a court of law take up the question.
• The 49ers, meanwhile, have already spent $1.4 million on the stadium vote campaign, including, presumably, for the lawyers who wrote up that contentious ballot language. The stadium opposition has raised all of $3,000, which according to the 100-to-1 rule (stadium referendums generally only pass when proponents have outspent opponents by that margin) indicates that if these spending trends keep up, the Niners have a good chance of winning the vote. Assuming, of course, that there is one.
• Over in San Jose, meanwhile, Earthquakes owner Lew Wolff clarified his plans for where the heck he'll come up with $40 million or so in "sponsorships" to pay for his proposed new stadium: He's going to make some calls. "The process of contacting potential advertisers and sponsors will begin in about a month, maybe sooner," Wolff told MLS Insider, adding, "It has to be privately financed in California, there is no public financing, so we do need certain level of pre-commitment to get the stadium done."
• Finally, MLB commissioner Bud Selig said Sunday that he's still waiting for that three-man commission he appointed last April to finish its report on sites for a potential new Oakland A's ballpark — the most important element of which will be whether San Jose is on the list, and if so whether the commission has decided how much A's owner Wolff would have to pay the San Francisco Giants owners for an official incursion into their MLB-designated territory. "They're getting reasonably close to competing their work, but they have some left," Selig told reporters Sunday. "They're working their way through a lot of things and they've made no recommendations to me." This is taking longer than watching Jack Cust try to score from first.

March 15, 2010

Selig on A's stadium report: Still typing, be patient

In case you, like Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff, have been wondering what's up with that A's relocation commission that Bud Selig instituted last spring, Selig officially declared yesterday that they're still working on their report:

"I've talked to them a lot," Selig said of the committee members, "and they have a report that will be coming in the near future. I don't have any comment until that's done."

The task force, in case you've forgotten, isn't actually commissioned to decide the best home for the A's, but rather to discover "why a stadium deal has not been reached" and how best to proceed from here. Presumably the final report will include an analysis of proposed sites in Oakland, Fremont, and San Jose, though the big decision that everyone's waiting for is what it will say about San Jose's status as San Francisco Giants territory — and how much the A's would have to pay to get the Giants to give up those rights. Given Wolff's previously stated preference to relocate to San Jose, the price for buying off the Giants is likely what will decide whether the A's owner gets his way, or is stuck negotiating with East Bay cities.

February 11, 2010

Oakland stadium sites filled with cranky landowners

Looks like when the city of Oakland whipped up its new list of potential A's stadium sites, it didn't actually guarantee that they were all available: The East Bay Express reports that some landowners at the Jack London Square North and Victory Court sites aren't sure they'd agree to move to make way for a new ballpark.

This could, of course, just be a negotiating ploy — it's easier to drive a hard bargain on the sale price if you're insisting you don't want to sell. That said, the Victory Court site is home to a coffee roasting plant whose owner claims it would cost $30 million to relocate, so at the very least, we could be looking at high land acquisition costs — which is kind of important, given that all of A's owner Lew Wolff's proposed stadium plans have included getting free land as part of the deal.

The city of Oakland, for its part, tells the Express that it isn't going to start talking to landowners until it gets the go-ahead from MLB's A's relocation commission to consider these sites. "It's purely speculative at this point," city economic development deputy director Eric Angstadt said. "We're waiting for baseball to give us an answer before we can take the next step." According to Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, the commission will be issuing its report to Selig next week, though that's what he said last week, too.

January 29, 2010

A's owner gnashing teeth over slow pace of MLB study

It's been ten whole months now since Bud Selig appointed a three-man commission to investigate whether the Oakland A's can move to San Jose, and apparently A's owner Lew Wolff is getting impatient. At least, he's antsy enough to tell the San Jose Mercury News have unnamed sources tell the San Jose Mercury News that Selig's commission should get on with it already.

In fact, as far as Merc News columnist Mark Purdy is concerned, if MLB doesn't act soon — and act to approve a San Jose move — the team could be headed out of California:

Bottom line: Wolff has not yet reached the boiling point where he's threatening to leave the Bay Area — or, more likely, sell to another owner who would move the team out of Northern California. But the teapot is building steam. It's hot stove season in more ways than one. Time to tend to this burner, commissioner.

Old threats never die, it seems, no matter how many times owners cry wolf. I hope at least Purdy is getting a pay raise for his honest reporting.

January 12, 2010

Fremont A's stadium lives!

You can re-enter Fremont in the Oakland A's sweepstakes after the city — as predicted here last summer — has pitched the now-closing NUMMI auto plant site as a possible stadium site. This is adjacent to the Warm Springs site that was previously rejected, in part because of opposition from NUMMI.

The Fremont plan is still a bit hazy, but would apparently involve the city buying the 370-acre property with redevelopment funds (i.e., bonds based on kicking back future property taxes, aka TIFs), building roads and other infrastructure, then handing over 120 acres to the A's for a stadium. No word on whether the A's would pay rent on the site, though it's probably ominous that Mayor Bob Wasserman called a ballpark a potential "catalyst for development," which in these cases usually means "loss leader."

The one new twist is that the plan would be put up to a public vote in November, something that previous Fremont plans would not have. The Fremont Citizens Network, whose protests helped kill the earlier plans last year, has vowed to defeat this one too, with president Kathy McDonald promising, "If this ridiculous thing actually goes to a vote in November, I guarantee that our campaign will not only be about defeating this proposal, but replacing a few heads."

Meanwhile, Oakland city leaders are still pushing for their own stadium plans, with local political bigwigs starting the nonprofit group Let's Go Oakland! to stump for a stadium at one of four sites. They already have 30,216 Facebook fans, so look out, San Jose!

January 04, 2010

Giants group demands A's guarantee stadium benefits

Stand for San Jose, the San Francisco Giants-funded group fighting the Oakland A's possible move to the South Bay, issued a demand last week that the A's agree to make up any shortfalls in promised economic benefits from a new San Jose stadium. In a letter to San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, the group said that the A's owners shouldn't be allowed to "attempt a hidden-ball trick to conceal the true costs to taxpayers."

There are two ways of looking at this: On the one hand, it's a savvy way to point out that economic benefit studies are, by and large, a load of crap. On the other, it's a largely meaningless request — actually measuring "economic impact" is more art than science, especially when you take into account things like spending that is diverted from one part of town to another (the substitution effect). So even if the A's owners agreed to such a provision, it would be fairly easy for them to concoct some numbers that showed the stadium was living up to its promises.

In any case, as eminent Stanford sports economist Roger Noll tells the San Jose Mercury News, there's no way the A's will agree to this: "Economic impact statements have a huge amount of uncertainty in them. No one would guarantee their validity. It's like somebody came in with the Farmer's Almanac and said, 'On Oct. 17, it will rain.' You can't guarantee it for me." Still, it's a nice way to poke fun at the Farmer's Almanac.

December 21, 2009

SJ Giants group warns: Bringing A's could blight Oakland

The San Francisco Giants-backed group opposing the Oakland A's potential move to San Jose has issued its list of objections to the project, and while some are typical — traffic impacts, potential losses to city services — one is not: The group is saying San Jose must analyze the negative impact of relocating the A's on the area around Oakland Coliseum. The San Jose Mercury News explains:

As to the matter of urban decay, [attorney Todd] Smith cites as legal precedent a case in Bakersfield in which a state Court of Appeal held that two environmental impact reports for large commercial shopping centers failed to analyze the centers' potential to indirectly cause urban decay in that city's downtown.

In his letter, Smith says the Oakland Coliseum, where the A's now play, is a centerpiece in the city's Coliseum Redevelopment Area Plan. Since the A's use the Coliseum more than any other tenant, their exit would mean the facility could sit empty and unused on at least 81 additional dates.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act authority, Smith said, the potential adverse impact on the redevelopment area must be analyzed in the revised environmental report.

Danielsen said San Jose will give that "careful consideration" — and that, in fact, planners may look to what happened when the Giants left Candlestick Park in 1999 to move to what is now AT&T Park.

I'm not entirely clear whether the report can just indicate, "Yeah, there will be an adverse impact," and then allow the project to go ahead nonetheless — it's certainly typical for EIRs in other places to simply list some negative effects as "no mitigation possible." But it's at least nice that San Jose is required to be neighborly about the effects of its actions.

December 16, 2009

Santa Clara okays 49ers-sponsored referendum; San Jose Giants fight San Jose A's

It was another action-packed day yesterday in Northern California's South Bay, as the Santa Clara city council resolved its dueling stadium referenda quandary by putting on hold its own ballot measure for a $937 million 49ers stadium, and instead endorsing the ballot initiative being pushed by the 49ers. If the team referendum can't gather enough signatures by March, the council would still have the option of putting its own measure up for vote.

In addition to enabling the 49ers to avoid any legal challenges to the vote on environmental-oversight grounds — as stadium site landholder Great America is trying to do in its lawsuit — the team-sponsored ballot item is seen as being worded more favorably to (duh) the team, with no mention of several pieces of the financing, including $330 million in bonds that would be sold by the stadium authority and hopefully repaid by the team. There were also some complaints about the title of the initiative: The Santa Clara Stadium Taxpayer Protection and Economic Progress Act. "I don't think the city should defer to allow an advocacy piece to go before the voters," said Will Kennedy, one of two councilmembers to vote against the measure.

Meanwhile, the possible relocation of the Oakland A's to nearby San Jose got an unexpected opponent yesterday: the San Jose Giants minor-league baseball team, which is helping form a group called Stand Up For San Jose to oppose using public funds for a new stadium. While they make some good points — including that land and infrastructure costs weren't included in the city's economic impact study — it's worth noting that the San Jose Giants, in addition to being in line to be displaced by the A's, are also one-quarter owned by the San Francisco Giants, who are trying to avoid losing control of the San Jose market. Looks like we could be in for another elephant-fight-by-proxy.

December 14, 2009

Oakland considering stimulus funding for A's

Largely lost in the to-do about Oakland's bid to keep the A's was this from the East Bay Express:

The City of Oakland would not spend any public money on constructing a new ballpark in Jack London Square for the Oakland A's, but would assemble land and provide infrastructure and parking for the stadium, Mayor Ron Dellums said at a City Hall press conference this afternoon. Dellums and city staffers said the city would use redevelopment funds to acquire property, and not the city's debt-ridden general fund, and hoped to obtain more federal stimulus money for infrastructure if the project goes forward.

As we've seen before, land and infrastructure and parking can add up to a hefty chunk of change, especially in downtown locations like Oakland is considering, where land costs for both the stadium and accompanying garages are likely to be high. Also, add this to the list of sports projects seeking federal stimulus subsidies — not that stadium building doesn't create construction jobs, but if you're going to put people to work just to get them work, you'd kind of hope they'd have a bit more public benefit.

Finally, if you had any doubt that stadium-chasing is a phenomenon that affects local elected officials across the political spectrum, the fact that friggin' Ron Dellums is advocating public spending on behalf of a private sports team should make things eminently clear.

December 11, 2009

Oakland tosses hat(s) in ring for A's

With media gab about the Oakland A's moving to San Jose reaching a fever pitch, the team's incumbent hometown grabbed some headlines of its own today, offering three new potential stadium sites (or four, depending on whether you count the existing Oakland Coliseum site) for the team's consideration. "We went to the MLB and said 'We want the A's in Oakland,' and we're comfortable with all of these sites," Oakland planning director Eric Angstadt told the San Francisco Business Times. Added planning commissioner Doug Boxer: "We are now in the game. We're in the mix."

The new sites: Howard Terminal at the Port of Oakland; Jack London Square North, not far from an earlier site considered by the A's; and Victory Court, just south of Lake Merritt.

Note, incidentally, that Angstadt said "MLB" and not "the A's." That's because Oakland is less concerned here with swaying A's owner Lew Wolff, who has stated his preference to move to San Jose, than with influencing MLB's A's relocation commission, which is scheduled to issue its report to commissioner Bud Selig next month. The real question the task force will be addressing is whether MLB will force the Giants to give up territorial rights to San Jose (and if so, how much Wolff would have to reimburse them in exchange), but given that part of its mission was stated to be evaluating "the prospects of obtaining a ballpark" in Oakland, city officials have to feel like it's not a bad time to put themselves out as a willing dance partner.

Depending on what the report says, then, the A's could be headed to San Jose, a new site in Oakland — or a bidding war between the two. Now, which one do you think Selig would like to see, hmm?

November 25, 2009

SF mag writer: My ex's old man so totally wants to move the A's to San Jose

It was headline news in yesterday's San Jose Mercury News: Oakland A's co-owners Lew Wolff and John Fisher had declared themselves in favor of moving the team to San Jose, with Wolff saying, "We have determined that San Jose is the only option for us in California," while the seldom-heard-from Fisher chimed in: "From the moment we bought this team the most important thing for Lew and I was to build a new ballpark to keep the A's in the Bay Area. Our conclusion is that the best opportunity to build a ballpark is in downtown San Jose."

Skeptics will note that this isn't exactly anything new: Wolff said pretty much the same thing back in March. And a read of the original San Francisco Magazine article that quoted Wolff and Fisher shows the story to be even odder: It's written by Steve Kettmann, a former A's beat writer and, weirdly, ex-boyfriend of Wolff's daughter Kari, who spends much of his 10,000 words lauding Wolff ("an affable, wisecracking businessman of 73"), crediting him with helping to get built the Sharks' San Jose Arena (which, perhaps inevitably, he describes as "gleaming"), and rehashing the well-rehashed tale of Wolff as the San Jose developer who bought the team with the secret desire to move it to his hometown. Possibly the most interesting new quote is from A's GM and minority owner Billy Beane, who argues that the Oakland Coliseum needs to be replaced because the toilets overflow when it rains.

If Wolff and Fisher granted interviews to their old pal in hopes of boosting talk of an A's move to San Jose, though, it seems to be working. Contra Costa Times sportswriter Joe Stiglich followed up with his own interview with Wolff talking up a San Jose move. Then CC Times columnist Gary Peterson followed with a column calling on MLB to make a ruling soon on the San Francisco Giants' territorial claim to the South Bay, either allowing the A's to move, allowing them to move for a price, or denying them access to San Jose for good (though Peterson called this "the least comprehensible of the options"). As publicity goes, it beats stories about how you just signed yet another third baseman with back problems.

September 21, 2009

More vaportecture in San Jose?

The San Jose Earthquakes released some sketches of a proposed soccer-only stadium on Saturday, but there's no indication when it might be built: Team owner Lew Wolff still doesn't know how it would be paid for, and would say only that it would open about two years after construction began, whenever that might be.

"People expect you to break ground," Wolff told the San Jose Mercury News. "I've been breaking ground all my life. But I don't like to generate expectations beyond what I can deliver."

Interestingly, Wolff didn't entirely rule out having the Quakes share space with the Oakland A's should they move to San Jose, though he said, "The first goal is to have it soccer only." Meanwhile, team execs announced they'd be cutting ticket prices for next season — some by as much as 40% — which is probably as much about the team having just finished in last place two years in a row as it is about the deflating ticket bubble.

September 06, 2009

NHL v. Balsillie: Haggling over the price

In the latest weirdness in the Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy case, the NHL has filed papers saying that a "reasonable" relocation fee for moving the team to Hamilton would be between $101 million and $195 million dollars. Spurned would-be owner Jim Balsillie, who wants to do just that, insists that $11.2 million to $12.9 million would be more like it.

The NHL responded that "the notion that a team in Hamilton would be worth only $11.2 million to $12.9 million more than a team in Phoenix is patently absurd." To which New York Times hockey writer Jeff Z. Klein adds: "Which of course raises the question: Why have a team in Phoenix and not Hamilton?"

The NHL's response, presumably, would be that a Hamilton team would cannibalize revenues from Toronto and Buffalo, whereas Phoenix has sole possession of that hockey hotbed that is the Arizona desert. Still, it does make it seem like the NHL is cutting off its nose to spite Balsillie — or, at the very least, holding up a move that might increase overall league revenues just so the league can demand a cut in return.

Either way, you have to imagine that the San Francisco Giants and Bud Selig's Oakland A's stadium taskforce are closely watching how this plays out. How to determine territorial rights indemnification — not just how much money changes hands, but who the payees and payers are among the teams involved and the league — is likely to play a huge role in determining whether it's feasible for the A's to move to San Jose.

September 04, 2009

Report: A's stadium benefit to San Jose would total only $65 million

Oy, the headline writers. The city of San Jose issued its economic impact study on a potential new stadium for the Oakland A's yesterday, and to read the headlines you'd think that the conclusion was that San Jose would be raking in $130 million a year in new revenue if the A's came to town.

But what the news reports call "economic benefits" is actually economic activity — in other words, the total amount of dollars spent in the city's confines. But if A's fans are buying $100 Bobby Crosby jerseys (I can't believe even Crosby's mother has one of those) in San Jose instead of Oakland, most of the money goes the same place: Into the pockets of the A's owners. The only added benefit to San Jose is whatever it skims off in sales tax, and the salary of the salesperson who actually sells the shirt.

Read the actual report, and it provides those numbers, though most of the news coverage chose not to highlight them. The key numbers are on page 25, where the report projects the arrival of the A's would bring 980 new jobs (many of which would no doubt be part-time, though it doesn't say); and on page 33, where it says that the total new tax revenue for local government would be worth about $100 million in present dollars over 30 years. And on page I-8, it also — and I give it props for doing so, since it's rare in an economic impact study — compares this to the return from doing nothing, calculating that if the land were instead allowed to have office and retail development built there local government would collect about $35 million in present value tax benefits — meaning the net value of an A's stadium would be $65 million.

So, is it worth it? We don't know, because we have no idea what the city would be spending — the general expectation is that San Jose's primary contribution would be to buy 23 acres 14 acres [UPDATE: see below] of land for the stadium and hand it over to the A's owners, but no one's saying what that would cost. (Downtown land was bringing offers of $20 million an acre four years ago, but that was in bubble money.) It's also worth noting that we haven't yet seen a proposed lease between the A's and the city, so it's conceivable there could be other hidden costs.

Let's say, though, that the city could get the land for a relative bargain price of $2 million an acre. Then San Jose would be looking at $46 million in costs, vs. $65 million in benefits (though some of the benefits, it's worth noting, would go to county agencies, not the city). And guesstimating the 980 jobs would translate into maybe 500 full-time equivalent jobs, that would be roughly $100,000 in expense per job created — pretty lousy as far as job creation goes, but in line with what most other stadium projects have generated.

Look at $2 million an acre, then, as the tipping point: If San Jose can get that price or lower, then a new A's stadium could be the next Pac Bell Park, where public costs were actually kept low enough that the modest public benefits of a stadium were worth the subsidy; more than that, and it's just throwing money down a hole. And that's assuming, of course, that A's owner Lew Wolff gets permission from MLB to move to San Jose at all — and that he can then afford the price of buying out the San Francisco Giants' territorial rights on top of building a $461 million stadium. But those are questions too complicated to get into in a headline.

[UPDATE: A reader points out that the current plan requires only 14 acres of land, not 23 acres. In that case, figure the tipping point at around $4 million an acre — above that, and even by the city's own numbers it's not worth the expense.]

August 30, 2009

Could NUMMI plant closing re-open Fremont to A's?

Toyota has announced it's abandoning its giant NUMMI plant in Fremont, California, next March, on the grounds that nobody's buying cars anymore. What does this have to do with sports stadiums? Well, NUMMI's opposition was one of the main reasons that Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff decided to ditch plans for a new stadium in Fremont earlier this year.

If NUMMI is shut down — it's still part-owned by the tattered remnants of General Motors — that would seem to open the door to a stadium on the Warm Springs site near a planned BART train station, especially if the NUMMI property is made available as well. Of course, given that Wolff's main goal right now seems to be convincing everyone that San Jose is his only option, he might not be all that happy to hear that.

July 23, 2009

California budget to boost stadium TIFs?

The California budget deal — otherwise known as the great experiment in whether conservatives are right that we don't really need Medicare or public schools — could have an unexpected effect on stadium deals, with a provision being voted on as soon as today that would extend the life of redevelopment areas for up to 40 years. "It prevents the cuts to local government from occurring," Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth boasted of his measure.

Um, no. Redevelopment areas use tax-increment financing, or TIFs: They don't actually generate new revenue, but rather redirect new property taxes to local governments (or, more commonly, to developers promising to build projects that will hike local property tax receipts). Needless to say, this revenue shuffle has proven popular with stadium boosters, despite a compelling pile of evidence that TIFs only end up making Swiss cheese of your local tax base.

The reason the state is pushing this plan, in any case, is because as part of the deal, the state would get to siphon off 10% of future TIF revenues, and borrow against that revenue now, helping close the state's current budget hole at the expense of future state budgets. It's a common theme to the budget deal: As our old friend Stanford economist Roger Noll told U.S. News and World Report: "In the short run it gets us through this year, and in the long run the same problem comes back even worse next year because $10 billion worth of gimmicks has been used that cannot be replicated."

But enough about budgets; what does this mean for stadiums? According to the L.A. Times, it would allow the City of Industry to siphon off "hundreds of millions" of dollars in coming years for infrastructure to support Ed Roski's planned NFL stadium; it would also presumably aid teams like the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Athletics in their stadium plans, as both teams have previously mulled TIF funding as a revenue source. Roski and his company, notes the Times, have contributed more than $1.2 million in the last six years to state politicians; when the vote comes up, we'll see if his money was well spent.

July 08, 2009

Oakland taxes county, A's tax fans

The new budget passed by the city of Oakland includes an 18.5% city tax on parking at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, something that's allowed by law, but Oakland is only just now getting around to doing because of the fiscal crisis infecting every corner of California. (Have I mentioned the IOUs?) Under the A's and Raiders lease agreements with the Coliseum, however, the teams are allowed to deduct any parking taxes from their rent payments — meaning the city is effectively siphoning off money from the county, which promptly responded by suing the city.

None of which stopped the A's from immediately announcing that they'd be raising parking fees by $2 per car effective immediately in order to pay for the tax — which, in case you were napping during that last paragraph, the A's won't actually have to pay. "In an effort to reduce the impact to our fans, the A's are only passing along a portion of the new tax," A's president Mike Crowley told the Oakland Tribune. Voila!

June 21, 2009

San Jose on A's vote: Wait till next year

Surprising absolutely no one, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed has announced that he won't be seeking a ballot referendum this November on building a stadium for the Oakland A's, as he'd earlier hinted at. Reed's statement was apparently prompted by A's owner Lew Wolff declaring that a November vote was "premature," though you'd have thought that the fact that there's still no financing plan or approval from MLB of an A's move to San Jose might have been enough to tip the mayor off.

A vote could now come in March, or June, or November, depending on when Reed thinks it's best politically (he's up for re-election next fall) and when the Gang of Three issues its territorial rights ruling. Holding your breath is definitely contraindicated on that one.

May 13, 2009

San Jose: A's stadium must "make money"

The San Jose city council held its baseball stadium meeting yesterday, agreeing on a set of principles for any deal to lure the Oakland A's. First and foremost: The city won't pay to build or operate a stadium, and it must generate money for the city's general fund.

This is an excellent start in theory, but as always, its value will depend on how the city chooses to interpret its pledge. Mayor Chuck Reed, after all, has already indicated that land subsidies don't count as "paying for" a stadium, leaving open the possibility of the city taking on hidden costs. And as for generating money for the general fund, there are plenty of ways to fudge that as well.

That said, it still looks like A's owner Lew Wolff's preferred relocation site will be an uphill battle: Barring hidden subsidies, he'd have to find a way to raise $400 million or so to build a stadium, plus lord knows how much to pay off the San Francisco Giants for the territorial rights they were granted 20 years ago when they were trying to move to San Jose. (No, it doesn't make sense. It's baseball management — even Google thinks it must be fiction.) And first he'll have to get through umpteen public hearings, plus whatever demands the proposed "Diridon Station Area Good Neighbor Committee" comes up with. And that's assuming MLB's A's stadium commission okays a move in the first place ... we could be here awhile.

May 11, 2009

San Jose mayor: No subsidies for A's, except...

With the San Jose city council set to take its first steps toward luring the Oakland A's, tomorrow, city mayor Chuck Reed has declared that A's owner Lew Wolff "needs to pay for his own stadium" — though according to the San Jose Mercury News, that wouldn't preclude giving the team free or discounted land, something that would require a voter referendum.

Reed, meanwhile, seemed to draw an even tougher line in the sand about what would be needed for an A's deal, though his choice of examples could raise some eyebrows:

In fact, at the top of the city's list is a requirement that any ballpark actually make the city money — "millions of dollars," Reed said — instead of merely not costing it any.

"We've seen it with" HP Pavilion, Reed said, "so we know it can be done." The San Jose Redevelopment Agency spent $135 million in the early 1990s to help build the arena, which brings the city's general fund an estimated $5.8 million a year.

Er... what? Even at a dirt-cheap 5% interest rate, $135 million in debt would mean the SJRA has to make $8.8 million in bond payments a year, which would mean the arena is running at least a $3 million annual loss. With cash cows like that, who needs money pits? [UPDATE: After further investigation, the arena's finances actually look to be better than that, with the public at least breaking even, if not necessarily earning "millions" &mdash see comments below.]

May 07, 2009

Wolff: A's are headed ... somewhere

Athletics Nation has a long interview with Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff in which he answers questions about his stadium plans, though as we've seen, "answers questions" has a somewhat different meaning when it comes to Wolff. In a nutshell:

• About a possible return to Oakland: "We spent a great deal of time and energy, more than anybody on any other side, investigating every site that we thought was available in Oakland. It takes me almost an hour and 45 minutes to go through what we did. We haven't had that opportunity with certain officials so they can understand what we think we've done to stay in Oakland. And the door is open there for them to tell me about something that I missed which is not impossible. ... Oakland is a built-up area. There aren't a lot of pieces of land that don't have a big expensive component to them to make them work."
• About a possible move to San Jose: "The answer is that we want to stay in Northern California. When we went to Fremont, there was hardly a word said. The Oakland people realized we were trying to stay. The territorial issues are really determined by Major League Baseball, not by me."
• About where else in Northern California the A's might move: "That's the problem. In the district we're assigned, it's either Oakland or Fremont."
• About whether Sacramento is an option: "I heard they have a pretty nice new ballpark in Omaha but I don't want to have to fly to Omaha to see our games. The one thing we haven't done no matter what anyone will tell you is that I have never threatened to go to another city outside the state."

Add that up and it's clear as mud, but one possible interpretation would be: "I'm trying to convince Bud Selig that San Jose is the only viable option in Northern California, but I can't say that out loud yet, because he has to believe that it's his idea." It's somewhat of a longshot — the San Francisco Giants could put up a fight over territorial rights, San Jose could decide it doesn't have the money or the land, or Selig could just decide it's not worth the hassle — but given the size of the payoff if he wins, you can't blame Wolff for trying. And besides, in the meantime it doesn't stop people from throwing out other stadium ideas.

April 08, 2009

San Jose cuts Quakes land price

In what the San Jose Mercury News calls an effort to "speed along a San Jose Earthquakes soccer stadium threatened by the cratering economy — now that doesn't sound promising — the city of San Jose has agreed to cut their asking price for the proposed stadium site from $132 million to $89 million. There are two ways to look at this, of course: as the city offering the Quakes a gift of $43 million, or as a reflection of the fact that California land isn't worth the paper it's printed on right now. City councilmember Sam Liccardo, whose district includes the stadium site, took the latter view: "Prices have come back to earth, and we have to face that reality. Doing something beats doing nothing in this economy."

While the council is expected to approve the land sale next month, it's still uncertain how the stadium would be financed; Earthquakes owner Lew Wolff (remember him?) originally proposed one of his patented development-rights swap deals, but with development not so much a going concern in California anymore, that plan is now "on hiatus," according to the Merc News. Last word from Wolff was that "we're trying to piece it together and I think we're going to get there."

In other Wolff-related news, the San Jose city council voted unanimously last night to move ahead with attempts to lure the Oakland A's to their city, with councilmembers calling for a study group and new environmental impact report for their proposed stadium site near the Diridon rail station. San Francisco Giants exec Bill Neukom responded on a local TV news show: "Those are our [territorial] rights, and we will continue to defend them."

April 01, 2009

Wolff to grudgingly meet with Oakland mayor

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff says he'll meet with Oakland mayor Ron Dellums in coming weeks to discuss the team's future, but a team spokesman insists this doesn't mean he's had a change of heart about considering staying in town: A's VP Ken Pries insisted, "We shouldn't read more into it than there is. He's just following through on the request made [by Dellums]."

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer wrote to baseball commissioner Bud Selig yesterday, saying, "It is critical that Major League Baseball and the A's ownership do everything possible to keep the A's in Oakland, and I stand ready to help in any way possible, including attending and setting up meetings for you and the committee." Apparently that committee got some people's attention — as no doubt it was intended to.

March 30, 2009

Selig appoints Gang of Three to seek A's stadium answers

If Lew Wolff wanted a response from MLB on the fate of the Oakland A's, he got one: Commissioner Bud Selig appointed a three-man committee today to study "why a stadium deal has not been reached" and where to go from here.

If you take Selig at his word, that will include all the options in the Bay Area: The commission said the committee will analyze "the prospects of obtaining a ballpark" in Oakland (which Wolff previously said he's done with) while league spokesperson Rich Levin said "territorial rights are part of the issue" (implying that San Jose could be in play if rights to that city can be pried loose from the San Francisco Giants). Unless, of course, Selig is just giving lip service to one or the other, or both, so he can say MLB looked at all the options before rejecting them.

As for the committee itself, it will consist of Bob Starkey, who used to be the Minnesota Twins' accountant (and before that worked for Arthur Andersen, best known for that Enron thing); Corey Busch, a longtime Giants exec; and Irwin Raij, who was one of MLB's lawyers on the relocation of the Montreal Expos to Washington.

As Rob Neyer observes: "Here's the question this committee will try to answer: 'Why won't poor people agree to give money to rich people?'"

March 29, 2009

Ratto: Wolff's all talk on San Jose

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ray Ratto has chimed in again about A's Lew Wolff's public spurning of Oakland for San Jose:

This has always been the problem when Wolff chats up folks about a new building. He talks before everyone else can walk, and as such comes across not as a guy with a plan but as a guy who hopes one magically materializes.

His history on this topic is clear, from the Oakland Flea Market plan on out - he speculates out loud, can't get sufficient immediate headway, tries for awhile and then he retreats. He comes off almost as a dilettante who wants to move out of his old neighborhood but wants the new neighborhood to come to him.

Ratto goes on to write that "MLB is already looking at a projected 9 percent revenue drop in 2009, and perhaps more. The Oakland-San Francisco problem means even less now to MLB than it did a year ago, and a year ago MLB didn't give a very discernible damn." If he's correct, then Wolff's strategy is even more puzzling than I thought.

March 27, 2009

A's owner: San Jose or the highway

Looks like my conspiracy theory may be right: Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff anointed San Jose as the front-runner for the team's new home yesterday, telling reporters, "We are really saying that we'd love to stay in Northern California, and go to San Jose. Wolff added: "From a preparation point of view, they are in as good a position as any city in California."

Perhaps more tellingly, Wolff said he expected a decision from the league on the San Francisco Giants' territorial rights to that city "by the end of the season, maybe sooner. I hope sooner" — the first public indication that MLB is preparing to officially reopen the question of rights to Santa Clara County, which were assigned to the Giants nearly 20 years ago when that team was mulling a move to San Jose.

Wolff also rattled the non-threat threat saber, hinting that another unnamed city outside of the Bay Area could acquire the A's if San Jose falls through: "If we want to stay in Northern California we don't want to get on a plane and go to another city... I won't name that city." Wait, wait, don't tell me!

March 13, 2009

A's owner: Oakland sucks!

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff responded today to Oakland city officials' overtures about building a new stadium, and he was, shall we say, less than enthusiastic:

We have fully exhausted our time and resources over the years with the City of Oakland, dating back to previous A's ownership.

We recognize conditions have not changed. Letters to Major league Baseball offer nothing new or of any real substance. Outside stimulation to have us continue to play in an aging and shared facility may generate press and "sound-bite" opportunities, but do not provide any tangible alterations in the circumstances we face.

We understand the facility continues to cost the city of Oakland and Alameda County millions of lost dollars per year. Sadly, the business and corporate base of the city of Oakland was very limited when we purchased the team and has eroded since. Our attendance and low number of season ticket holders (both one of the lowest in Major league Baseball) also continues to decline; even when our on-field performance produced play-off participation.

We appreciate the sincere interest of Mayor Ron Dellums, Supervisors Scott Haggerty and Gail Steele and local citizen Sherman Balch, as the very few people that have offered encouragement and in-depth understanding about our situation.

Our goal and desire for the organization is to determine a way to keep the team in Northern California. That goal has not changed.

We have no interest in covering old ground again, as we need to move forward in finding a future home for our team.

Zoinks. Needless to say, it's a tad unusual for a sports team owner to publicly dismiss a stadium offer — even one as vague and unformed as Oakland's — without even attempting to string them along for the sake of creating leverage. Either Wolff is sending a message to Oakland to put its money where its mouth is — past Oakland administrations have balked at Wolff's demands for development rights in exchange for staying put — or he doesn't want anyone distracting MLB from approving his campaign to get permission to move to San Jose. Except, of course, that he told San Jose to quit with the public lobbying, too. Curiouser and curiouser...

Oakland forming own damn A's committee

Not to be left out of the fun, the city of Oakland has formed its own committee to discuss a new stadium for the A's, with Mayor Ron Dellums and city council president Jane Brunner writing to MLB commissioner Bud Selig yesterday asking him to appoint a liaison to the new task force, and saying they'll do anything "reasonably possible" to keep the team. You'd think they'd know by now that MLB wants nothing to do with "reasonable."

March 12, 2009

San Jose to launch A's campaign

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff may have told San Jose city officials to quit bugging MLB about his team moving to their city, but Mayor Chuck Reed just can't contain his enthusiasm, it seems. "All right, it's time for baseball," said Reed yesterday in announcing that the issue will be taken up at an April 7 city council meeting. :We know we have a great market for professional sports and we have a site identified. Although the [economic impact report] is done, it's not 100 percent ready. But we can prepare ourselves."

Reed said it was too soon to spend city money on a poll to see if city residents are as excited as he is, but a council committee disagreed, passing a measure yesterday that called for a public poll. Michael Mulcahy, the local businessman and former mayoral candidate who heads the private A's to San Jose Study Group, says he's trying to raise private funds to do the polling. Not like there'd be any concerns about biased results there.

UPDATE: Reed's office has put out a statement saying that the AP story linked above was incorrect, and that any poll will be funded by Mulcahy's private group. Hey, remember when newspapers conducted polls, in an attempt to be objective and stuff? Remember newspapers?

March 08, 2009

Could Coliseum rehab satisfy A's?

Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a rundown of how the Oakland Coliseum could be rehabbed for the A's if the Raiders moved out, possibly to share digs with the San Francisco 49ers. The Chron's verdict: "It just might work," citing the Coliseum's central location, the Los Angeles Angels' successful (and relatively cheap) renovation of their stadium back to baseball dimensions after the Rams left for St. Louis, and that some of the stadium's new premium seating could be retained even if Mount Davis were torn down.

Of course, the Raiders would need to move out first, but there are more relocation options for an NFL team than for an MLB team, so maybe. Much will depend on whether A's owner Lew Wolff is willing to sit tight until the Raiders situation is resolved — that is, if he has much choice in the matter.

February 28, 2009

Wolff to San Jose: Shhh, not so loud

Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff has responded to San Jose's enthusiasm for being the team's new home by sending the city a letter telling them to knock it off. "[Though] I do not wish to seem disrespectful, and I always am delighted to take calls from elected officials and others, I would appreciate you letting those who wish to contact Major League Baseball officials that, as far as I am concerned, such contacts are not recommended."

For a sports team owner to publicly refuse a potential stadium offer before even using it as leverage to get a stadium elsewhere is — what's a stronger word than "unprecedented"? If I had to speculate, I'd guess that Wolff is either worried that open lobbying for a San Jose A's would throw a wrench into any negotiations for the San Francisco Giants to give up their territorial rights, or that in general he'd rather be talking to cities behind the scenes rather than in the pages of the newspapers. (Assuming newspapers still exist much longer.) Hey, it worked for Randy Levine.

If San Jose-area sports fans are eager to have a stadium debate to follow in the meantime, they can still enjoy the latest in the San Francisco 49ers saga, where newly elected county supervisor George Shirakawa Jr. has announced plans for a new football stadium on the site of the Santa Clara County fairgrounds. Because, you know, why settle for one stadium scheme with an unclear financing plan when you can have two?

February 27, 2009

San Jose launches A's talks, Facebook group

San Jose is definitely trying to be the front-runner in the where-will-the-Oakland-A's-end-up derby, at least in terms of public image. According to the San Jose Mercury News:

Some gathered in a hastily called meeting. Other boosters signed up for a new "Baseball San Jose" page on Facebook. They talked of conducting polls and rounding up sponsors and perhaps even offering a discount on city-owned land already earmarked for a downtown stadium.

They also called team owner Lew Wolff, who is in Arizona to mark the beginning of spring training.

The Merc News did not say whether boosters had invited Wolff to play a game of Lexulous.

More seriously, San Jose councilmember Pete Constant has called for public money towards an A's stadium to remain on the table if it's part of "a deal that makes financial sense for the city." A city referendum would almost certainly be required first. Other councilmembers are planning a poll to gauge local support for a stadium, though you have to wonder whether they'll ask whether San Jose residents will want to help pay for it as well.

February 24, 2009

What next for the Fremont-free A's?

With the Oakland A's-to-Fremont plans in disarray, everyone and their sister is speculating what's next for the team, since owner Lew Wolff says he doesn't have a Plan B. Latest to throw their hats in the ring:

• Sacramento Bee writer Bill Bradley offers up his city as a nice destination for the A's, though noting that Wolff told local sports editors last fall that Sacramento "lacked the corporate and TV base necessary to succeed."
• Morgan Hill Times writer Michael Moore (what, do all journalists in Northern California have to share their names with famous people?) notes that "one local property owner" is pushing for the A's, Raiders, or San Francisco 49ers to move to her town on the west side of the bay for "the benefit of humankind."
• The San Francisco Examiner's Glenn Dickey (okay, they don't) suggests that Wolff reopen talks with Oakland on building a new stadium there, which was, after all, his original plan. Dickey proposes two sites adjacent to the A's current home, as well as one just south of Jack London Square, though he says nothing about who would pay the construction tab.

Wild speculation aside, what seems most likely is for Wolff to lay low for a year or two, while working behind the scenes to put out feelers for a new site, and wait for the economy to perk up a bit. Though given recent reports, he might not want to hold his breath on that last one.

UPDATE: Wolff has now officially stuck a fork in Fremont. (Thanks to Dan for the link.)

February 22, 2009

A's can't make up their mind if Fremont stadium is dead

Depending on which Oakland A's official you believe, the team's plans for a baseball stadium in Fremont are either dead, not dead, or somewhere in between. On Friday, team spokesman Bob Rose announced: "At this time we have decided to no longer pursue the Fremont project. We are regrouping and will have discussions internally about our future options." On Saturday, A's owner Lew Wolff contradicted that statement: "Unless you hear it from me, it's not necessarily true. I have not personally made an announcement yet" - though he added, "Things look gloomy there. I'm concerned about moving forward."

Further confusing matters is that there are two sites under consideration in Fremont. An initial report in the San Francisco Chronicle implied that it was only the original site near I-880 that was being ditched - but also cited as one reason opposition from the NUMMI auto plant, which was actually complaining about the Warm Springs site near its facility.

San Jose councilmember Sam Liccardo responded to the news by saying he hoped this would open the door for the A's to instead move to his city, but it didn't sound like he was holding his breath: "For people like me who would love to see the A's play baseball in San Jose, the fact that the deal is falling through in Fremont doesn't hurt. ... Until we hear from the Oakland A's that they'd like to move to San Jose, there's not a lot of reason to start banging the drums down here. There are still issues that need to be resolved before the A's could come to Santa Clara County, and we're hopeful that Lew Wolff and his team will find a resolution." (Yeah, no kidding about those "issues.") Chron columnist Ray Ratto, meanwhile, is ready to file a death certificate on the whole A's-moving thing:

Oh sure there's San Jose, and that is only a few hundred million dollars, some currently absent political will, thousands of angry taxpayers and a few environmental impact reports away from becoming reality. You'll notice we didn't include the Giants' territorial rights claims. Because those are about as enforceable as Germany's claims on Tanzania, we decided to ignore them as baseball will if and when the time comes.

More realistically, though, the A's are back in Oakland and for many years to come, as predicted by smart people everywhere.

(Note: I don't share Ratto's dismissal of the territorial rights issue, if only because Germany never had Bud Selig on its side.)

Ratto also notes that if the A's stay put, it throws a major wrench into the Raiders' recently floated plans to redo the Oakland Coliseum: "It is, after all, hard to get permits to build on a site that is still in daily use by a baseball team, and while Al would not necessarily find that a stumbling block, the A's would probably object to having their employees duck wrecking balls while trying to chase down a double in the left-center field gap." Though, of course, Jack Cust already fields that way.

February 17, 2009

A's cancel Fremont stadium presentations

In case you were thinking the Oakland A's stadium plans in Fremont hadn't completely hit a wall, here's a wall for you: Club owner Lew Wolff announced today that he was "indefinitely postponing" a stadium presentations to the Fremont Chamber of Commerce and Fremont City Council that had been scheduled for next Tuesday. How come? "I've postponed the meetings because we had so many people lined up to yell at us," said Wolff, adding: "We're also really busy with spring training."

You might wonder whether Wolff only just noticed that spring training happens in the spring, but no matter - today apparently was Lame Excuses Day. I eagerly await Rick Wagoner's explanation that the dog ate his first $13 billion.

This week in baseball deals

I'm going to try to post links here more often to articles I write elsewhere, since the "recent articles" listing went away in the Great Redesign. Today, it's an essay for Baseball Prospectus on recent developments in the Florida Marlins, Oakland A's, and New York Mets stadium situations. It's for subscribers only, but if you don't have a BP account, you can also check out the spirited discussion of the Marlins stadium deal I kicked off on BP's Unfiltered blog.

Also on the Marlins front, South Florida Sun-Sentinel sports business writer Sarah Talalay says the city and county commissions will hold their stadium votes next month on different days, to avoid the craziness that took place on Friday, while her colleague Dave Hyde thinks it's fair to demand that taxpayers get paid back before the team's owners take a profit on the deal.

February 12, 2009

Vikings, A's owners: Where is the love?

Sports team owners appear to have decided on a strategy for responding to the effects of the economic downturn on stadium prospects: whining.

• Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff, caught between a rock in Fremont and a hard place in San Jose, lashed out at opponents of his stadium plans this week. "I didn't think it would be this difficult," Wolff told local business leaders, calling those opposed to a stadium in their neighborhoods "self-interested and absurd" and complaining, "we're not building a rendering plant." He also griped about the lengthy process that has now dragged out for two and a half years: "We think those issues should be fully aired, but not forever. Somebody needs to put a timeline on it." Which would sound less whiny if not for the fact that it's also been two and a half years waiting for Wolff to produce the promised details of how his proposed stadium would be paid for.
• Not to be outdone, Minnesota Vikings VP Lester Bagley attacked Gov. Tim Pawlenty yesterday for not doing enough to land his team public funds for a $954 million stadium: "With all due respect, he's been governor for six years, and he hasn't done anything. He hasn't lifted a finger to engage in a problem-solving discussion to help us on our issue." (Well, maybe one finger.) "We've addressed this in times of surplus, in times of deficit, in election years and non-election years and they've chosen to put it off. Now, they've put it off to a point where the risk is significant to the state." The risk of what, exactly? "We have 30 games left at the Metrodome, and the issue isn't what the Wilfs will or won't do. It's that other NFL owners, other potential NFL markets and potential owners will come after this team." I know it's de rigueur for teams to deny they're making move threats even as they make them, but does Bagley really want us to believe that Ed Roski is going to stage a hostile takeover?

February 11, 2009

San Jose A's would likely need voter approval

Not so fast with the San Jose A's talk, even if the whole San Francisco Giants territorial rights thing gets worked out, says the San Jose Mercury News. For one thing, any attempt to sell the A's land at anything below market value would trigger an automatic voter referendum; and San Jose councilmember Sam Liccardo says a referendum might be needed anyway, just because of the scale of the project. Given how the last attempts at a baseball stadium referendum went in San Jose, that doesn't seem a likely recipe for success - though a lot would likely depend on the financing plan, which, as in the case of the A's Fremont stadium proposal, is currently an utter mystery.

February 09, 2009

Fremonters protest A's stadium plans

A planned Oakland A's "information session" on their latest plans for a new stadium in Fremont turned into a protest on Thursday, as hundreds of local residents turned out with "No Stadium" signs and worries of horrendous traffic in their neighborhoods. Team officials responded, according to the San Jose Mercury News, by saying they have "proposed to pay for traffic monitors and security guards to keep fans out of surrounding neighborhoods." This doesn't seem like it's going to end well.

January 19, 2009

A's: Warm Springs, here we come, maybe

It's official, more or less: Now that their original proposed stadium site in Fremont has bit the dust, the Oakland A's owners are refocusing their efforts on a site next to the Warm Springs BART station that is set to open in Fremont in 2014 ("funding permitting," notes the BART website). A's co-owner Keith Wolff went so far as to say the Warm Springs site is "most likely" the preferred site for now, which in the stadium biz is practically like moving in with all your furniture.

Warm Springs would mean getting away from the traffic worries that have bedeviled the original site (the final straw for that plan, in fact, was when the developer of a neighboring plot complained about the likely traffic nightmare), but would present new problems. Reports the San Jose Mercury News:

But that location, just west of Interstate 680 near the intersection of Osgood Road and Grimmer Boulevard, presents its own hurdles. Many Warm Springs residents oppose the site, fearing the ballpark will cause gridlock and noise.

The team doesn't own any land near the BART site and would have to purchase several lots on which to build the stadium.

Not to mention the fact that the Wolffs would be back to the drawing board for financing, especially since the Warm Springs site apparently wouldn't be eligible for tax-increment financing (i.e., kicking back property taxes to pay for construction) as the old one would have. The Merc News speculates that Warm Springs may just be a stopgap while the A's owners work out a deal in San Jose, but that'd require not just paying for a stadium but also paying off the San Francisco Giants for their territorial rights, which is going to be tough to afford just by selling more Jack Cust t-shirts to Google employees.

For now, the A's will be submitting a revised development application to the city of Fremont, which means going back to the drawing board both with an environmental impact analysis and with public hearings. "By volume, it's a lot of people," Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman told the Merc News of local opposition. I really hope he meant that they're loud, and not the alternative.

January 09, 2009

A's-to-Fremont growing more of a longshot

The Contra Costa Times reports that the Oakland A's talks with ProLogis, owner of their proposed stadium site in Fremont, are going nowhere, with Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman saying the two sides are so far apart that there's no point in further talks at the moment. (The A's have a deal with Cisco Systems, which holds a lease on the land, but ProLogis last month declared its opposition to the plan, which would effectively block it.) That'd leave the site by the Warm Springs BART station, but Wasserman didn't sound too optimistic there, either:

Wasserman acknowledged that the Warm Springs option had the twin problems of a brand new environmental review and "an upset community, to say the least." Also, the team doesn't own any land there.

Asked to give the odds that the A's would still come to Fremont, Wasserman would only say, "Probably lower than they were."

Add in that the Warm Springs site is not in a redevelopment zone and so would not be eligible for tax-increment financing (kicking back new tax revenues to help pay for construction costs), according to what Jennifer Lin of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy tells FoS, and I think we can classify the A's stadium plans as "back to the drawing board."

This site written and maintained by Neil deMause. Copyright © Neil deMause, all rights reserved.

Powered by Movable Type 3.2.