It’s tricky writing about a breaking news situation where the “news” is mostly posturing by various sides: If you report on something someone says, is that relaying information, or acting as a mouthpiece for their gamesmanship? It’s a tough call, which is probably why so many journalists these days seem inclined to punt the entire question and just print everything any major political or business players say without context or analysis. (Ha ha, of course I kid, it’s because only the rare journalists these days consider context or analysis to be part of their job.)
Anyway, with one day to go before tomorrow’s Oakland A’s stadium vote, there’s so much verbiage being thrown about that only bullet points can convey the urgency:
- On Friday, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s office put out a counterproposal to A’s owner John Fisher’s initial $855 million subsidy demand, and it included a bunch of changes. Only one Infrastructure Financing District would be created to siphon off future property tax revenues, directly around the A’s proposed development at Howard Terminal (previously estimated as generating $495 million between city and county funds), with no tax money redirected from the surrounding neighborhood (previously estimated at $360 million). Fifteen percent of new housing units from the A’s development would need to be “affordable,” with an equal amount of offsite affordable housing either built or preserved, up from the 0% Fisher was offering. And the A’s would agree to a 25-year non-relocation pact, up from the 20 years Fisher was offering but down from the 45 years Oakland officials had wanted.
- A couple of hours later, A’s president Dave Kaval declared that the city’s offer was unacceptable, saying that “what was released today does not work for the A’s” and that for the council to vote yes on the revised term sheet “would really be a no on that project.” If there’s no change in the city’s offer before tomorrow, Kaval warned, “that would really foreclose our last opportunity in Oakland. We’re down to our last at-bat, our last location, and it would really put or build additional momentum in places like Southern Nevada, where we have this parallel path going, to see if we have an opportunity there that works for the club.”
- A’s GM and minority owner Billy Beane rattled even more move-threat sabers, saying that at the Las Vegas Aviators’ Triple-A stadium, “the facilities here are better than we have in Oakland,” and that “our guys get sent down to AAA, they are actually going up in terms of the playing of the stadium and so it’s really an amazing, amazing place.” (The Las Vegas Ballpark, naming rights sponsor TK [oh duh, no it’s not, see comments], holds 10,000 fans, though maybe it has a really nice weight room or something.)
- Over in Nevada, elected officials told the Nevada Independent that talks there with the A’s are preliminary at best. Clark County Commission chair Marilyn Kirkpatrick said she had only had a “meet and greet” with team execs, and cautioned that “I don’t think we can fund what they might be asking for”; a spokesperson for Henderson City Manager Richard Derrick said he had had two meetings with A’s officials, but these were “largely exploratory.”
- At least some A’s fans found by the San Jose Mercury News started to freak out that the A’s will now move, or at least to be sadly resigned to that fate: “It’s frustrating, I’m upset, I’m angry, I’m sad,” one fan told the paper, while others said they blamed the A’s owners, or the city, or both the A’s owners and the city, for not getting a deal done.
I actually happened to be at Saturday’s A’s game, and was surprised not to see more signs protesting the threatened move, though it’s possible Oakland fans have just been through this so many times that most can’t be bothered to get enraged. (I also noticed that a remarkably large share of A’s jerseys worn by fans had their own names on the back, which is a reasonable adaptation to seeing all the team’s best players traded every couple of years.) The crowd was smallish but boisterous as on my past visits, with everyone twirling their giveaway “Ride The Wave” shirts as the A’s mounted a 9th-inning comeback that fell short; at least the team management had the good taste not to use their other slogan, “Rooted in Oakland,” on the shirts, though there was still lots of signage and souvenir mugs for sale reading that, move-threat sabers nothwithstanding.
So, context and analysis, in brief: Fisher and Kaval asked for $855 million and to be exempted from state affordable housing requirements, Oakland came back with $495 million and no affordable housing exemption, and Kaval said, Well in that case, Las Vegas is lovely this time of year. [Ed. Note: Fact-check this.]
This is what’s called a showdown, and no matter how the council votes on Tuesday, this game of chicken is likely to stretch well beyond that, because both sides have way too much at stake for a quick resolution. If Oakland officials don’t back down enough in the next 24 hours for Fisher and Kaval to give their blessing, A’s execs can be expected to start talking seriously about how to fund a stadium in Las Vegas — or, as things have typically gone in the past, talking about talking seriously about it, in hopes that it will scare Oakland into upping their ante.
If history is any guide, it is extremely likely that this will end with some sort of compromise where Oakland offers that $495 million plus some free land or additional tax breaks or cheesy bread, and Fisher and Kaval grudgingly accept it as the bare minimum they will put up with. (This outcome is doubly likely given that it’s hard to conceive of Las Vegas, or Henderson or Portland or Thunder Bay or wherever, coming up with more than $495 million plus cheesy bread, even without getting into how those places are all much smaller TV markets.) Getting to that point will likely take a while, though — you don’t squeeze every last dollar out of your negotiating adversary without pulling every arrow out of your quiver — so the smart money would be on this dragging out quite a bit longer, and getting quite a bit uglier. If there end up being 2022 Las Vegas A’s cards, please save me a set.
Topps can issue 2022 Las Vegas cards like they did back in 1974 when the Padres were rumored to be moving to Washington and they put out a set of Washington “National League” cards.
Yep, that’s what “Las Vegas A’s cards” links to above. (I myself own a Johnny Grubb “Washington Nat’l League” card.)
Ah – should have checked your link before I posted!
Maybe the slogan is actually using the Aussie meaning of “root”?
“If history is any guide, it is extremely likely that this will end with some sort of compromise where Oakland offers that $495 million plus some free land or additional tax breaks or cheesy bread”
If they strike out in Vegas, they come back to the negotiating table with their tail between their legs I don’t think they are getting $495 million
Cards? I’m sure the 2022 Las Vegas A’s will be commemorated as NFTs which can only be purchased using dogecoin.
Nothing could be more perfect. Unless the dogecoin had to be provided through a special tax district created by the city of Oakland….
You know… I am aware that politicians are always afraid of losing their spot cause, really, many of them just like being in positions of power instead of actually doing good, but at what point do you just wash your hands and say “Look, we tried. It’s not worth fighting anymore for sports.” Having professional teams is nice, but if billionaires and millionaires want the taxpayers to fund their playthings and not chip in themselves, when do we wake up and realize it’s not worthwhile?
It’s very obvious the A’s want to move to Las Vegas, and if Las Vegas wants to waste money on boondoggles, let them. Oakland can use that money to improve the city. The drawback, of course, would be they would be left with no assets for any major sports team, since Oakland Arena is unlikely to ever be replaced and San Francisco teams can flex their muscles and claim ownership of the territory. But… sometimes, you gotta know when to fold ’em.
Oakland voters just don’t really care. Keeping professional sports at public expense (or even just more generally) has consistently ranked very low in polling of Oakland voters regarding what their priorities are.
This actually raises an important question that maybe a local can answer: How come no one’s talking about a voter initiative to either support or block the Howard Terminal plan? Does California’s proposition process not apply to IFDs for some reason?
Answer to question.
Mechanism already exists in California. Proposition 218. Simply put, Proposition 218 eliminates any ambiguity regarding the power of local residents to use the initiative by stating, “that residents of California shall have the power to repeal or reduce “any” local tax, assessment, or fee.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_218
Accordingly, even if the City of Oakland approves the Jack London Square IFD, the area shaded in red below, the property owners may reject such by a simple majority (requires 2/3 approval by property owners).
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2021/07/06/17583/oakland-council-not-opposed-to-as-stadium-subsidies-but-is-haggling-over-the-price/
Reference 9. City Project Manager Molly Maybrun discussion of Jack London Square IFD.
https://www.rickeyblog.com/2021/07/09/17-updates-from-oakland-city-councils-study-session-on-as-howard-terminal-proposal/
The IFD isn’t a tax or fee, though — it’s a redirection of an existing tax. Does Prop 218 say anything about denying public entities the ability to kick back future collections of current taxes?
To me, it would not be worth $495m in subsidies to keep any professional sports team anywhere.
Since the owner of a professional franchise is obviously not willing to pay that money themselves (in Oakland or elsewhere), it is obvious they do not see the business case for investing that kind of money in the franchise themselves.
I’m not sure that the A’s have demonstrated they want to move to Las Vegas. All I have seen them do is demonstrate that they think they can get more money out of Oakland by talking about moving to Las Vegas. I could see an actual relocation to Vegas being a financial disaster for the A’s. There is no evidence Vegas is willing to spend anything on the A’s at present. Maybe they’ll come around to that conclusion eventually, but at the moment all they’ve had is introductory talks and a the LV mayor saying she might be willing to give them the land under Cashman field.
Why would the city of Oakland “Fold’em” when they can call the A’s bluff?
Oakland has proposed more than half a billion in subsidy, is a vastly larger market and has no other professional sports teams in situ. Vegas has proposed nothing, but has suggested they might give free land. Vegas also has two other major league teams in place.
What kind of a fool would opt for Vegas under those circumstances?
I wish these pols would play a little more hardball.
“Hey, if a half billion dollar package isn’t enough for you, I invite you to shop it around and see if you can do better and if it’s worthwhile to move from the 6th largest TV market to the 40th.”
I mean it’s not like it’s a stadium subsidy, at least of the stadium itself. It’s a project subsidy for the infrastructure portion of the $12 billion dollar redevelopment of that entire portion of the port. It’s still a public subsidy, but lets characterize it properly. It’s not money going to the building of the stadium itself, but the infrastructure around it. A subtle difference to be sure, but a important difference none the less.
Do I need to repeat my comment from a previous thread regarding a public subsidy for a billionaires endeavor?… (I guess thinking about it your way Dan would make me feel better as an Oakland taxpayer if I was also an ardent supporter of HT/A’s)
You may need to yes. And it would make me feel better. The infrastructure improvements and toxic site cleanup are benefits to the city at large as well as the billionaire owner. And similar subsidies have worked out very well across the Bay in San Francisco which is oft touted as the only “privately financed” ballpark in the last half century.
I mean I get being opposed to public subsidies for ballparks. But this is one of the least offensive subsidies out there.
The Giants got about $15 million in TIF money for sewers and sidewalks and such immediately around their new stadium. That’s similar to Fisher’s $855 million roads-and-overpasses-and-seawalls ask in that they’re both labeled “infrastructure,” but that’s about it.
Different sites, different infrastructure needs. And different price point today compared to 25 years ago.
China Basin was an industrial wasteland and former port area with collapsing piers, broken seawalls, and much more.
Are you an Oakland taxpayer Dan who resides in either proposed IFD’s? If so, then you have every right to support a public subsidy for the A’s; be it for actual stadium construction or infrastructure.
This wouldn’t cost taxpayers in the IFDs more than Oakland residents elsewhere — an IFD isn’t a tax surcharge, it’s just the same property taxes that would normally get paid to the general fund instead getting kicked back to subsidize the project. (A TIF, in other words.) There’s been some talk about a CFD as well, which would be a surcharge, but that wasn’t part of Fisher’s original math.
Antonio: Directly relayed several sites to FoS fearless investigative journalist. Whether CFD (66%), IFD (66%) or EIFD (55%) property tax owners in Jack London Square EIFD must approve of EIFD. In other words, if 50% + 1 property owners reject EIFD, it’s dead. California law. Doesn’t matter what anyone else says or thinks in California or the rest of the nation. Those property tax owners are determinant.
Okay. 66.67%.
Isn’t Fisher (or his designated corporation) going to control – and very likely own – all the “new” development inside the TIF (region 1) zone?
That was my understanding of the original proposal, and that is typically what sports cartel members demand as part of their welfare package. IIRC someone said Fisher was “investing $12Bn in Oakland”. He may or may not ultimately do that. Lots of TIF zones have the stadium and very little else of the original proposal built inside them. Even if he does invest that much, he is doing it to turn an operating profit (probably somewhere in the $1-2Bn annual range), not as a gift to Oakland.
It’s $495m in public spending that will go to the sole benefit of the individual franchise owner (or businesses controlled by that individual).
The fact that none of this is earmarked for the stadium building itself is a difference so subtle as to not really exist.
Fisher is not doing this to benefit Oakland. He is doing this to benefit himself. I would point out that he “owns” half of the coliseum site and does not need the infrastructure improvements at HT if he simply builds at the site he already owns part of. If he were to do that the city could still improve the HT lands and then sell them to recover the costs (and more, the way municipalities generally work) as opposed to funnelling this money directly into the pockets of a billionaire.
There’s nothing in Fisher’s original term sheet that requires anything to be built other than the stadium and the infrastructure:
https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/xjv6r4eztujkuewbqomk.pdf
“Las Vegas Ballpark, naming rights sponsor TK…”
Remember, Las Vegas, or the Convention & Visitors Bureau to be specific, *is* the naming rights sponsor. Unless you mean they’d have language in that deal to be able to rip it up and resell the rights if an MLB team temporarily called the ballpark home.
Oh man, I had totally forgotten that — good catch. That’s up there with University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.
So that’s why it’s named “Las Vegas Ballpark”… in Summerlin. I was just there yesterday and that was gnawing at the back of my brain as to why a Summerlin based ballpark owned by Howard Hughes Corp would be named Las Vegas Ballpark both because it’s not in Vegas and it’s such a generic name in the era of the Guaranteed Rate Fields and Dignity Health Sports Parks.
Comical quote from NYTimes today:
“Fisher, a billionaire whose family founded the Gap clothing stores, has consistently kept the franchise in the bottom third of MLB payrolls. The A’s have been largely successful anyway…but they have grown weary of playing in the shadow of the Giants’ shimmering ballpark”
Of course, no mention that the Giants stadium was privately financed, a 66 year lease, less public giveaways, and passed on a public ballot, but who’s counting anyways?