Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf may be one of the Gang of Four mayors taking a hard line on stadium subsidies, but that doesn’t mean she can’t try to help the Oakland A’s owners by showing them properties they could buy with their own money. A’s co-owner John Fisher (and possibly co-owner Lew Wolff’s son and stadium point man Keith) will reportedly tour the Howard Terminal site today along with Port of Oakland officials to see if it can be made to work for a new A’s stadium.
This is only one of several sites the A’s owners are looking at, and they still prefer to stay at the Oakland Coliseum site, and really just going to kick the tires isn’t much of a commitment. But since Howard Terminal has been one of the alternate sites that has gotten more attention, this is getting lots of press attention today. Personally, wake me when somebody has a financial plan.
This is a huge waste of everyone’s time. There will be no movement on the issue u til the Raiders figure out what the hell they’re doing. On that front, I got a good laugh today out of the renderings of the proposed Las Vegas stadium at Bali Hai. It’s just a copy-pasted picture of the Carson stadium.
Copy-pasted would be bad enough, but they didn’t even bother to add fireworks or spotlights!
ROTFL! I was thinking the same thing. It must have cost the architect a fortune to sketch those Vegas casino/hotels and take Los Angeles off of the original renderings.
“Las Vegas Dome” = Carson stadium renderings with a roof drawn on. I hope they gave the intern an extra five bucks for that half-hour of work.
Then: “This sleek design, open to the top and sides, takes advantage of the mild year-round weather and ocean breezes of Los Angeles’s South Bay area. Lateral air movement will provide a natural air conditioning for the players and fans.”
Now: “[draws glass roof on top] LAS VEGAS DOME, BAYBEEEEE!!!!”
LV rendering link: http://www.mercurynews.com/raiders/ci_30290994/raiders-las-vegas-stadium-new-images-from-proposal
Carson: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-chargers-raiders-stadium-design-20150817-story.html
yep, pretty much copy and plop in new surroundings. Facade is black, rather than a neutral tone.
There are quite a few port related interests that are against the use of Howard Terminal for the stadium. I see no way this location can happen for the A’s. Then again, I still believe their best move would be a relocation to Sacramento.
I’m sure there are, but they don’t really have any real power. As for Sacramento, we’ve noted this but you’re the only one.
The real question is how Lew Wolff gets a positive ROI out of that site even is he gets a sweetheart lease. There would have to be some ancillary development he wouldn’t get otherwise. One might think a hotel. However, Wolff is already making his short-term Oakland hotel play at 14th and Jefferson near Frank Ogawa Plaza and he didn’t need a stadium to do it.
It’s still a violation of Proposition 26, by the way.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_26,_Supermajority_Vote_to_Pass_New_Taxes_and_Fees_(2010)
This seems like a, um, slam-dunk case to me.
(I put this in the wrong place. Sorry.)
Sacramento?
Oh, God. Please, no. I’m already tired of them saying, “If you don’t use the arena, you won’t pay for the arena*.”
*Unless you plan to park anywhere downtown.
What are they going to do, raise parking rates even more?
Raley Field is a perfect location for a new A’s stadium. Its more favorable than having a stadium situated next to an industrial port.
Believe me, there will be quite a few port interests that will strongly oppose having Howard Terminal used for a new baseball stadium.
The port interests and $5 will get you a single-serve drip coffee at Blue Bottle in a rapidly gentrifying Oakland.
Not that I think this is going to happen per se, but your Sacramento silliness is getting tired. Howard Terminal probably isn’t going to happen, but Sacramento definitely isn’t.
The only definite is that San Jose isn’t going to happen. None of us know what Lew Wolff and John Fisher are contemplating.
Actually, we do. They do things like, you know, say things, go places and spend money. For example they tour the Howard Terminal site, get permits to build hotels in Oakland and say things like “we want a stadium in Oakland” and “we’re not moving to Sacramento.”
But never mind those pesky “facts”.
So. Lew Wolff lives in Westwood. Does that mean he’s considering moving the A’s to Los Angeles?
I live in San Francisco. Does that mean I could be pitching for the Giants tonight?
I think it unlikely that the A’s are really interested in HT. It may or may not work (and there’s a whole pile of info on both sides of that question to consider for validity) economically for a stadium, but they don’t seem to want to be there.
It could be an effort to put pressure on the folks who control the existing site though. Dally too long with the Raiders and their ever mutable interests and whims, Gentlemen, and you may lose the option to keep the A’s on site.
I’m not saying it will work… just that Wolff isn’t helping himself by sitting on the sidelines waiting for the coliseum authority and the Raiders to come to a conclusion – something neither side seems at all fussed about doing these days.
That’s…ummm…an interesting theory.
The Coliseum Authority is a partnership between the City of Oakland and Alameda County, though Oakland seems the dominant player and there’s been talk of them buying out the county’s stake.
Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, is quoted as saying Howard Terminal is “a fantastic site for a ballpark.” Furthermore, it’s port land, so she’s not on the hook for paying on it.
That would be an odd form of pressure. “If you don’t give us the Coliseum site we’ll go to the place you want us to go and send the bill to someone else.”
Lots of people have tried to convince Wolff that HT is a great spot. He has never agreed that it is.
The City is not the only “player” in the partnership, as you admi.
And you have completely mischaracterized the argument… likely deliberately.
I never said Wolff thought it was a great spot.
What I said is it would be an odd form of “pressure.” Threatening to do what the other party in a negotiation suggests they want you to do isn’t much for leverage.
The reality is this is just due diligence. Wolff doesn’t think he can make money at Howard Terminal, and he’s likely right, but there’s no downside to taking another look over the place.
I remember back in the second rendition of the Fremont A’s Lew Wolff didn’t take part but sent his son instead. We could tell that meant he wasn’t very serious.
For what it’s worth I was just watching the channel 7 news and they had a quote from a port official basically saying “we’d be open to leasing port property.” That isn’t quite a financial plan, but it’s also not quite “showing them properties they could buy with their own money.” It’s more like the middle ground of the Giants stadium–a private stadium with a lease of the public land underneath on fairly favorable to sweetheart terms.
Which gives them precisely zero incentive to pursue such an option.
Well yes and no. “Sweetheart deal for land near Jack London Square where you can build a stadium” isn’t quite zero incentive. It just is less of an incentive than “sweetheart deal on existing stadium you didn’t have to pay to build.”
Sweetheart deal on land at existing Coliseum site with no other teams there, transit and a lot of infrastructure already in place, and the space to have parking and a bunch of money-making ancillary development on site is a much better incentive.
Maybe though East Oakland isn’t exactly the waterfront in terms of development value though it is more land. That said neither sweetheart lease is official on the table, there is no financing plan and no firm plan for ancillary development either place. Therefore, we’re comparing conjecture with conjecture.
Ancillary development to do what? Howard Terminal is part of an industrial port. Aside from additional shipping terminals, what can be built there without having to deal with the issues such as high levels of pollution and more density?
A hotel or housing.
Yes, it’s part of a port today so if redeveloped it would be next to a port. So is Jack London Square. So was China Basin. So was Dogpatch and Mission Bay and the massive development Lennar is constructing at Hunters Point.
I’m not saying it will be redeveloped but let’s try not to be obtuse. Fortunes have been made and lost on turning port property into high-end housing, offices and hotels since someone repurposed abandoned ships in the harbor in 1848 and turned them into what’s now the financial district.
Also, since when is “more density” a problem? More density, especially more density around transit is a stated regional priority. This site sits adjacent to the Ferry Terminal. In fact the best argument against a stadium is it is a waste of land that could better be used for high density housing given the existing ferry service to the Ferry Building that is right there.
First, there is a reason why Jack London Square, at certain times, looks like a ghost town. Placing residential housing along a corridor, where trains run on a daily basis, is not the most pleasant living experience.
Second, that area of the port is not slated for redevelopment. Rather, it appears the port is looking for more uses to expand its industrial base. That is what brings in more revenues. The port doesn’t want housing or a stadium. They wan’t ship berths and train tracks.
Furthermore, there is no comparing Howard Terminal with China Basin, Dogpatch or Hunters Point. Those areas had a port history which has been abdicated for decades. The Port Of Oakland remains the fifth most active port in the country.
You may think it is “not the most pleasant living experience” but if you go look at housing listings it’s a living experience that goes for between $500k for a 600 sq ft studio condo to over a million for a one or two bedroom. Let me let you in on a little secret: It’s about the money.
As for the land not be slated for redevelopment. Ding-ding-ding. We have a winner.
Let’s review what I said the last time we went around:
1. Lew Wolff is a real estate developer first. He knows the Bay Area market well and that’s where he invests. His first goal in anything is to make money on real estate development. The Quakes Stadium? A way to get housing development done. The proposed San Jose A’s stadium? A way to get retail and office development done.
2. The Oakland real estate market is white hot. Lew Wolff has been moving in. I suggested he would build a hotel in Oakland, as that’s his preferred first entry into an area, and if he could use the A’s to get it done he would. I said this because that’s what he essentially said. 4 months later he announced plans to build a hotel in Downtown Oakland. He didn’t have to do anything with the A’s to accomplish that.
3. I said the value of the A’s stadium was to get him development he couldn’t otherwise get. For example, a parcel of waterfront property with no redevelopment plans located in the most convenient place for financial district commuters that politicians publicly suggest could be a stadium site.
In short, if it was slated for redevelopment without a stadium, Lew Wolff would do the economically logical thing and develop 100% of the property with no stadium. The stadium only comes in if it open the door to a profitable development he couldn’t get anyways. Stadiums are money losers, but if it’s a loss leader, that’s a different matter.
Now, let me put right up there why I’m skeptical about the site. It has nothing to do with Sacramento or port interests or any of that nonsense. It’s simple: The site isn’t that big. The stadium would take up a big chunk of it. Likewise, while the transit link to the financial district is excellent, the link to the places A’s fans would be coming from, largely other parts of the East Bay, is not. It’s well connected to jobs, but not to other housing. Therefore, you’d need parking with the stadium which would eat a lot more of the parcel. After all of that is taken up there’s not a lot of room left for the profitable elements of such a development. The math probably doesn’t work out, but Wolff is going to explore it and see if he can find a way to make it profitable.
The reason Wolff is looking now when he dismissed it out of hand just a few years back is if you look at the price of condos in the Jack London square area, they’ve roughly doubled since the height of the financial meltdown. Therefore the math, while it probably still doesn’t work, is at least closer to working so he’s doing sound financial scenario planning.
It’s about the money. Follow the money.
In case you didn’t notice, Scola, most of the condos in the Jack London Square area happen to be located much further away from the area where port related activities take place. That is unlike the Howard Terminal location, which is next to active shipping berths that sometimes have round the clock usage. I don’t know what will happen to that parcel. However, I believe neither condos, a hotel or baseball stadium will end up in that spot.
Scola. I don’t live in the avenues. I do live in a part of San Francisco where there is a BART station, buses and light rail within two blocks of where I reside. However, there are no diesel trains and ships located in my neighborhood. The point I am making is that noise is just one element of living near an industrial port. I used to live in downtown Long Beach. Although the port was located a considerable distance from my condo, my neighbors and I frequently had to sweep black soot (from coal dust) off our balconies. Thus, its not just noise. There are high level pollutants in a port area. Whether its emissions from the ships, trains or trucks, or items being exported/imported, placing any structure next to an area central to port activities places people at risk for future health problems.
Coal dust?
I admit I’m no expert on the shipping industry but I believe container ships run on bunker oil and trucks on diesel. Where is the coal dust coming from?
I guess Long Beach might have a coal terminal. I don’t know much about that port. However, as you are surely aware there is a huge controversy in Oakland over potential coal shipment at the future bulk commodities terminal. However, that’s at the former Oakland Army Base. That would be closer to the Bay Bridge than the Howard Terminal. Heck it would be closer to the retail and condo developments in Emeryville than the Howard Terminal not to mention the big developments going on in West Oakland.
If coal dust is actually a concern, there are billions of dollars of development that would be more impacted than this one, even ignoring that Oakland officials are opposed, Berkeley officials are irate that coal trains would pass through their city, and Governor Brown has put the full resources of the state against that terminal.
I’m not sure I see the point. So there’s a port that have “sometimes have round the clock usage.” Before you said trains run “on a daily basis” (oooh, ahhh).
It’s a city. I lived over the L tracks in Chicago. The train came by under my window every 10-15 minutes 24×7. It made noise, but also think about what happens when ice touches the third rail. I lived on a hill over I-5 in Seattle, the busiest North-South trucking route on the West Coast again 24×7. Now I live a block from a fire station in San Francisco and fires happen when they happen. Welcome to living in a city. It’s not freaking Walnut Creek. I thought you said you lived in SF? You must be way out in the Avenues.
Scola. I don’t live in the avenues. I do live in a part of San Francisco where there is a BART station, buses and light rail within two blocks of where I reside. However, there are no diesel trains and ships located in my neighborhood. The point I am making is that noise is just one element of living near an industrial port. I used to live in downtown Long Beach. Although the port was located a considerable distance from my condo, my neighbors and I frequently had to sweep black soot (from coal dust) off our balconies. Thus, its not just noise. There are high level pollutants in a port area. Whether its emissions from the ships, trains or trucks, or items being exported/imported, placing any structure next to an area central to port activities places people at risk for future health problems.