If you’ve been following the agonizingly slow drip of news about the Oakland A’s plans for a new stadium at Howard Terminal on Oakland’s downtown waterfront, you may recall me wondering aloud how much city taxpayers would be on the hook for associated “infrastructure and transportation projects,” which were slated to be paid for by siphoning off future property tax revenues from the stadium district. I took a guess at a $1 billion stadium cost, and speculated that the ultimate public price tag could be $200 million or more, a figure that was later repeated by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Well, on Friday the A’s owners released their proposed term sheet for the project, and if you scroll wayyyyy down to Exhibit F, you will find this:
Project-generated revenues from the Jack London Infrastructure Financing District are estimated [to include] $360 million to be used to fund off-site infrastructure (e.g., pedestrian grade separation, vehicular grade separation, bike lanes, railroad safety improvements, sidewalk improvements and intersection improvements).
And:
Project-generated revenues from the Howard Terminal Infrastructure Financing District are estimated [to include] $495 million to be used to fund all on-site infrastructure development costs (e.g., environmental remediation, seismic improvements, backbone utilities, sea level rise improvements, sidewalks/streets, over 18 acres of parks and open space, and a Bay Trail connection.
A’s owner John Fisher, in other words, will pay for the construction costs of a baseball stadium and surrounding development — so long as the city coughs up $855 million in tax revenue to take a largely inaccessible industrial district and trick it out with new roads, underpasses and overpasses around highways and train tracks, and protect it from earthquakes and the sea level rise that is set to hit San Francisco Bay extra-hard. You know, $855 million in sundries.
This is a very large number, especially for a city that is already facing budget cuts as a result of pandemic-related revenue shortfalls, even after getting partly bailed out by the federal stimulus package. How best to distract people from that kind of an ask? Why, with even larger numbers, of course:
Okay, so: The ballpark will indeed cost more than $1 billion in private money to construct, atop all those city-funded sea-level-protection berms and surrounded by city-funded infrastructure (everybody drink!) improvements. That additional $1 billion in “general fund dollars” and $450 million in “community benefits,” though, is a mirage: Those numbers were calculated by adding up all the city revenues that will be diverted by those two new tax increment financing districts, subtracting what the A’s will use, and decreeing what’s left over to be public benefits, even though it’s, you know, public money that normally would go to the public in any case.
And while some of the property tax money will be “generated” by the A’s new development — “generated” in scare quotes, because TIFs invariably end up cannibalizing tax revenue that would exist even without the new development that they go to fund — that huge pool of cash would be created by mapping out TIF districts that are flipping ginormous, encompassing not just the new stadium development but much of the already-built-up area around Jack London Square:
To her credit, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf appears to have read the $855 million fine print, issuing a statement that “The City is willing to bring to bear its resources to help make this vision a reality; however, today’s proposal from the A’s appears to request public investment at the high end for projects of this type nationwide.” Still, that sounds more “Can’t we bring that number down a bit?” than “You’ve got to be kidding me,” in which case this project is looking at certainly hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure subsidies, even if Schaaf intends to haggle over the price.
Hundreds of millions of dollars sound smaller, though, when compared to numbers in the billions, so expect to see the A’s trying to keep the focus on how much the team would be spending, not on how much in public money it would be asking for. Already, team stadium czar Dave Kaval has already been successful on one front: all the news coverage so far has used the biggest number possible in their headlines, and that’s the $12 billion that team execs say they’ll spend on the overall development, once the stadium gets built, maybe. (The term sheet doesn’t actually require any buildings other than the stadium to be built — and the stadium needs to be built first, and most of the infrastructure would be required to be built before the stadium opens.) Misdirection is the cornerstone of all successful magic.
The very best kind of privately funded project is one in which you stick your local taxpayers with roughly half the cost.
In truth, I’m not surprised at this proposal. Oakland has been pushing the A’s to build at HT despite what they know will be horrendous remediation and infrastructure costs. The A’s are essentially saying “If you want us there, this is what it will cost to make it happen”.
I think this would be a terrible use of public money, but in fairness to all the city has been pushing for the ballpark to be built there so why wouldn’t the A’s agree to explore that? The city wants them there, so why not see if the city is prepared to pay a tremendous amount to get them there?
The best location would appear to be the current coliseum parking lot, of course, but rational solutions appear to not matter at this point.
The part I don’t really get is how, even excluding the infrastructure subsidy request, A’s ownership figures to turn a profit on a $1bn stadium alone. That seems unlikely to me, given their market and fanbase. Weren’t most of their prior proposals based on a 32k-35k facility with costs in the $400-450m range?
You hit the nail on the head JB! A $1 BILLION+ ballpark in a region of the Bay Area with little corporate support and low disposable incomes (compared to SF and SJ); the sole reasons the Raiders and Warriors left. How would the A’s pay off the GINORMOUS debt? They couldn’t even afford to keep Marcus Semien! And the property tax bill for said ferryland stadium? FUGHETTABOUTIT!!!
My assumption is that Fisher is planning to pay off the stadium with the profits from getting “reinvigorated city center” land at an unimproved-land price. Either that or he’s an idiot. Or both!
I actually think that this is a grandiose “scheme” to go back to MLB and say “Well, we gave it our best shot in Oakland” and have an pending relocation approved (wherever out of Oakland that may be).
Yes, while at the same time taking full ownership of the property at the existing Coliseum site.
What available market would be better than building at the Coliseum site?
Neil, to answer your (probably semi rhetorical) question: there isn’t one. The A’s aren’t going anywhere if (in my estimation more likely when) the Howard Terminal plan fails.
What available market would be better than building at the Coliseum site?
2-3 years ago I would say Portland. Now I am not so sure
I didn’t think of the question being what other city could accommodate the A’s. I don’t know the answer to that. Portland is the only thing that comes to mind. (I would also admit San Jose makes a lot of sense.)
As with the Raiders, I think they’re mainly looking for someone to sweeten the pot with a new stadium. The Fisher’s do not want to fund it on their own which is why they’ve come up with this very complicated real estate scheme. I think the scheme is purposely convoluted and unlikely so that they can say “well, we tried” as someone else noted.
The hardcore fans think the ownership is wedded to staying in Oakland. I think they would move in a heartbeat if they had a good chance. It wasn’t long ago they were seriously pursuing Fremont and San Jose.
San Jose and Fremont are both in the same metro area the A’s are already in and the same media market, which really doesn’t qualify as relocation in any useful context. It wouldn’t even involve a relocation fee.
“Major League Baseball has an excellent track record for creating beautiful new ballparks that reinvigorate city centers and spawn new neighborhoods, from San Francisco to Baltimore; we want no less for Oakland.”
Let that sink in.
Wow. I never realized that MLB was really an NGO or perhaps an outright public service. I assume the owners have taken a vow of perpetual poverty just like many candidates for sainthood are expected to?
Baltimore before beautiful new ballpark: sh@thole
Baltimore after beautiful new ballpark: sh@thole
You can’t put a price on that sort of transformational change. Sports franchise owners can.
I think the Howard Terminal site is a feint. The real action is the land at the Coliseum where the A’s already own half the land. I expect the A’s to first ask to buy that land, get the development rights there, complain that the Howard Terminal site is just too complicated, and then move the team.
Move them where? There are precisely zero more valuable markets for them to go to.
Well, if you think about Vegas, it’s about the same size metro as Cleveland, which is home to MLB, NFL and NBA. Vegas is also growing like a weed with Cali expatriates, and probably a lot wealthier than Cleveland (and Oakland for that matter). Most likely Sin City would have no problem enacting some sort of tourist tax (or extending an existing tax, “surcharge) to fund a new ballpark somewhere near The Strip.
The regional tv contract that a MLB team could get in Vegas would be worth a fraction of what the A’s get in their current market. The Vegas metro also has quite low average disposable incomes, certainly less much lower than the areas the A’s currently draw from, and has the highest proportion of workers who work nights and weekends of any major metro.
Las Vegas is significantly poorer than Oakland proper, to say nothing of the richer suburbs surrounding Oakland. Median HH income Vegas $56,354; Oakland $73,692.
Henderson, Nevada.
See above. A genuinely terrible market worth substantially less than where they are now. Could be that there is a stupid enough billionaire or two to try and make that happen though.
And yet the Raiders left that splendid “half” Bay Area market that’s the best “half” market in the entire nation for the Nevada desert. Gee, I wonder why? (Hint: $$$$$$ for stadia)
NFL finances work very differently. There’s essentially no local TV money for American football, and most teams sell out all their games regardless, so market size is pretty much irrelevant. You could put an NFL team on the Moon (or in Green Bay) and it would work fine; other sports, not so much.
I would argue NDM that the NFL and MLB bring in most of their TV revenue from the HUGE national TV contracts (ESPN, Fox, NBC, etc.), with the RSN’s and “butts in the seats” acting as chump change in comparison. So yes, you probably could put an NFL team on the Moon (or Vegas) and all would be fine and dandy… same goes for MLB. (again, the big underlying issue is the funding for actual stadium building, IMHO)
I don’t have the latest numbers handy right now, but suffice to say that RSNs are way more than chump change for MLB teams, since so many games aren’t nationally televised. Which is why you see NFL teams moving from Houston to Nashville, but the same would never ever happen in MLB.
MLB’s anti-trust exemption is why teams aren’t moving around the country “willy nilly” like the NFL; not RSN contracts (If not for the exemption the A’s would already be playing in $an Jo$e, and we’re not having this conversation). But I’m sure that if a municipality was willing to offer the A’s major public funding for a ballpark, the RSN “strength” of said municipality wouldn’t matter to MLB. IMHO
The antitrust exemption also helps tamp down relocations in MLB, sure. But that doesn’t explain why you see teams moving from larger cities to smaller ones in the NFL, but not in the NBA or NHL, which also don’t have antitrust exemptions. (I guess Seattle to Oklahoma City is an exception, but there were special circumstances there, since the owner wanted a team in Oklahoma.)
NDM@1914, 4/26/21,
Vega$, Portland… or perhaps after nearly 30 years MLB does the right thing and finally works out a deal with the Giants for $an Jo$e! But I digress: if the Oakland City Council decides to throw over $800+ million in tax dollars towards this endeavor, ESPECIALLY during a pandemic!, then they by all means deserve to keep the A’s in town (facepalm). (Current coliseum site would work, but I have this strange feeling the A’s aren’t looking to set up permanent shop in decrepit East Oakland, even with owning half/soon-all the land)
Tear down Laney College and put the new stadium there. The college isn’t educating anyone, just providing jobs for incompetent teachers and progressive indoctrination.
This kind of nonsense doesn’t work on anyone that doesn’t have terminal Fox News brainworms. Tearing down a community college — one of the only widely available avenues to a semi-affirdable higher education — is a profoundly stupid idea, and is wildly unpopular among the public.
Anon. Valid question. And mine as well.
Tampa Bay (Tropicana Field. 03/03/1990)
1998 63-99 .389 2,506,293 (14th) 30,942
1999 69-93 .426 1,562,827 (24th) 19,294
2000 69-92 .429 1,449,673 (27th) 18,121
2001 62-100 .383 1,298,365 (28th) 16,029
2002 55-106 .342 1,065,742 (28th) 13,157
2003 63-99 .389 1,058,695 (29th) 13,070
2004 70-91 .435 1,274,911 (29th) 15,936
2005 67-95 .414 1,141,669 (30th) 14,095
2006 61-101 .377 1,368,950 (29th) 16,901
2007 66-96 .407 1,387,603 (29th) 17,131
2008 97-65 .599 1,811,986 (26th) 22,370
2009 84-78 .519 1,874,962 (24th) 23,148
2010 96-66 .593 1,864,999 (22nd) 23,025
2011 91-71 .562 1,529,188 (28th) 18,879
2012 90-72 .556 1,559,681 (30th) 19,255
2013 92-71 .564 1,510,300 (30th) 18,646
2014 77-85 .475 1,446,464 (29th) 17,858
2015 80-82 .494 1,287,054 (30th) 15,322
2016 68-94 .420 1,286,163 (30th) 15,879
2017 80-82 .494 1,253,619 (30th) 15,477
2018 90-72 .556 1,154,973 (29th) 14,259
2019 96-66 .593 1,178,735 (29th) 14,552
Oakland A’s (Oakland Alameda County Coliseum: 09/18/1966)
1998 74-88 .457 1,232,343 (28th) 15,214
1999 87-75 .537 1,434,610 (26th) 17,711
2000 91-70 .565 1,603,744 (24th) 19,799
2001 102-60 .630 2,133,277 (20th) 26,337
2002 103-59 .636 2,169,811 (18th) 26,788
2003 96-66 .593 2,216,596 (16th) 27,365
2004 91-71 .562 2,201,516 (19th) 27,179
2005 88-74 .543 2,109,118 (19th) 26,038
2006 93-69 .574 1,976,625 (26th) 24,403
2007 76-86 .469 1,921,844 (26th) 23,726
2008 75-86 .466 1,665,256 (27th) 19,965
2009 75-87 .463 1,408,783 (30th) 17,392
2010 81-81 .500 1,418,391 (29th) 17,511
2011 74-88 .457 1,476,791 (30th) 18,232
2012 94-68 .580 1,679,013 (27th) 20,729
2013 96-66 .593 1,809,302 (23rd) 22,337
2014 88-74 .543 2,003,628 (24th) 24,736
2015 68-94 .420 1,768,175 (26th) 21,829
2016 69-93 .426 1,521,506 (29th) 18,784
2017 75-87 .463 1,475,721 (29th) 18,219
2018 97-65 .599 1,573,616 (26th) 19,427
2019 97-65 .599 1,670,734 (23rd)
In 16 of 22 seasons, the Oakland A’s have drawn more fans through turnstiles than the Tampa Bay Rays, with the San Francisco Giants just across the bay, in a stadium 24 years older where there are no doors on the toilet stalls. A’s attendance rises and falls based upon their record. Rays attendance …..
Correction.
2019 97-65 .599 1,670,734 (23rd) 20,626
Plus, they have to think not just about ticket sales but about TV rights deals. Even half of the Bay Area market is bigger than Portland, let alone someplace like Nashville. (Neither of which have baseball stadiums at all, whereas Oakland at least has something.)
This is exactly the point I’m trying to make. Splitting the Bay Area and broader Northern California, southern Oregon, and western Nevada market with the Giants is a lot better business than having any other available market to themselves. And trying to go anywhere outside the region is going to mean encroaching on another team’s tv territory, which was a huge cluster for the Nats and Orioles, and not something the league or any team would really want to go through.
Serious question. Is there a reason the Alameda Naval Air Station isn’t in the mix? Every first Sunday of the month the runways are filled with 10,000 to 15,000 for the Alameda Point Antique Show (or were until Covid). Sure the Webster Street Tunnel can be problematic. However, the naval air station runways are just sitting there abandoned. Best view of the San Francisco skyline to be had there. And the opportunity to build a sea wall for the rise in the bay still exists! Or is it the economic and other benefits to be had by Oakland?
I believe that area has been set aside for a future VA clinic, which is a better use of space:
https://alamedapointenviro.com/2021/02/18/mismanaged-va-project-stumbles-along-officials-remain-silent/#more-6145
Also, no public transportation at all.
Yes, Jack London is already significantly removed from BART (heavy rail) but you are fairly close and have local bus lines. Alameda is much further from BART and has restricted access as it’s an island.
The Jack London Square/Howard Terminal area is a doable hike from BART’s 12th Street and Lake Merritt stations as well as even via the West Oakland station, not that anyone in her or his right mind would want to do so after dark or even during the day at present.
Seriously, figuring out how to truly revitalize Downtown Oakland and its waterfront in ways economically sound has vexed many for generations.
On the other hand, the new Polar Park in Worcester MA for the also new to Wusta Triple-A Red Sox team looks to be making good $en$e over the long haul in what has already been a long slog to revitalize long downtrodden Worcester Center.
Conversely, Lowell MA is not looking forward to the demise of the Red Sox’s Single A Spinners, not to mention that Lowell’s LeLacheur Park is a modern facility, if not also a great park for minor league and other baseball teams (e.g., college ball).
The devil is in the details, not what are stipulated to be gobsmackingly big bucks and even if building a new park next to Coliseum looks to be the no-brainer way to go.
For but a few examples in a complex puzzle, one has to factor in the benefits of repurposing at least a portion of the Coliseum complex as well as those arising from infrastructure upgrades in the Howard Terminal area given a relocation.
In short, run the numbers stripped of the hype — and preferably by a couple/three duly expert outside reviewers.
VB: Thank you. Know this. NorCal (Bay Area-Sac) resident for 45+ years. Family, friends live in region (grandfather lived in Alameda before he passed). Probably should’ve been more explicit in my ask.
Agreed. A’s only viable option is current location (66th, Hegenberger, I880). In olden times, before Mt. Davis, Coliseum had good view of Oakland foothills. It’s not the bay, however, you takes what you get.
Back to my Michaans Auction on-line catalogue.