The Oakland city council voted 5-2 last night, with one abstention, not to put an Oakland A’s stadium on the November ballot. Such is the state of democracy that it may be hard to immediately tell if this is a sign that the council doesn’t want a stadium at all or just doesn’t want to leave it up to icky voters to decide, but it turns out it’s Door #2:
The vote is a win for Oakland A’s executives, who have been pushing for fast municipal approval of the Howard Terminal site in the East Bay.
Team president Dave Kaval said earlier this year a ballot referendum could have made the project unfeasible, calling it a delay tactic that would push negotiations onto a new city council, effectively starting talks at square one.
If you read my Global Sport Matters article from last month, or my Hell Gate article from the month before that, you’ll be familiar with the idea that sports team owners hate holding public votes on stadium and arena plans, because those only succeed about half the time while going straight to legislative votes almost always results in a win. So of course Kaval and his A’s bosses want this approved by the council ASAP without public input, it’s much safer that way. (Even if not necessarily faster, given the extremely slow pace the council is taking to say yea or nay on the A’s stadium plan.)
Though maybe that’s not what just happened? The East Bay Times tells a different story:
Several councilors supported the idea of bringing another ballot measure to voters after more details materialize, especially if the A’s development proposals do not include “iron-clad” financial backstops that city officials have demanded to protect the city’s coffers.
So the council didn’t really vote not to let voters vote on an A’s stadium, they just want voters to know what they would be voting for? The San Francisco Chronicle echoes that the five councilmembers who voted down the ballot measure did so “due to a lack of clarity on what exactly the measure would be asking,” which isn’t all that clear; also not clear is how long the council has to put a measure on the ballot, which is kind of important given that financial details of the plan have been murky for almost a year now, and are the real reason the stadium talks are dragging on so long.
The Chronicle also reports that the vote not to hold a vote came after a ten-hour meeting where speakers “were impassioned on both sides of the ballpark and development issue,” so at least there was some public input, even if not the kind where anybody tallies up who has a majority afterwards. Kaval, meanwhile, continues to push for a council verdict now now now, or else he’ll get MLB to let the team move to Las Vegas, don’t think he won’t! If you’re wondering how that kind of threat usually works out, ask a San Antonio Marlins fan, but past performance does not guarantee future results, so we’ll see.
Finally, let’s take just a moment to examine this A’s-provided stadium rendering, which isn’t new but which I’ve never looked at really closely:
What exactly is that kid in the A’s cap holding as he points at the distant baseball game, some kind of tam o’shanter? And who is “HUGHES,” the (presumably) A’s player whose souvenir jersey is worn by a fan off to the left? (It doesn’t appear to be any actual A’s player from the past, so maybe the A’s can see into the future?) And in the center mid-distance, meanwhile … is that someone wearing a Stomper mascot head? Is that the actual Stomper, relegated to watching the game from 600 feet away because he doesn’t have a ticket? The Oakland city council should have a lot more questions about what kind of hellscape John Fisher is asking them to conjure into being, is all I’m saying.
Must be nice to live in a city that keeps it’s residents from having a say while FREE MONEY falls from the sky for sports developments..
There is a lot of misinformation about this project that gets repeated:
-The ballpark will be privately funded. Any public funds are for infrastructure – roads, walkways, bike paths, etc. that would benefit the area regardless of whether a stadium exists there or not.
-Public funds for the project are “but for”, generated by the tax district and paid for by the A’s. They do not come out of the general fund, are not being diverted from other services, and would not exist without this development.
-The ballot measure – drafted by councilmembers opposed to the project with the help of an AstroTurf organization representing polluting industries at Howard Terminal (and possibly the Giants, though that cannot be proven) was worded with misleading language as to the two points above and designed to elicit a “no” vote.
That is, in fact, the opposite of what “but for” means. You have to look not just at what taxes will be collected if the project happens, but at what taxes could be collected if the project doesn’t happen. So, for example, if a Howard Terminal development cannibalizes any development that might take place elsewhere, that’s not a 100% net gain.
But, yes, the stadium construction itself would be privately funded. Fisher would just be getting a $1 billion check for other goodies to make his project more valuable.
The site is currently a parking lot generating minimal property taxes. Are all future development to be blocked because the site could “potentially” generate more taxes from other types of projects? If the site is so valuable, then why hasn’t it be developed to a “higher” use already?
Nobody’s saying future development should be blocked. (Well, I’m not.) But you have to include costs as well as benefits, and that includes opportunity costs.
“development that might take elsewhere”? Like where? Brooklyn Basin? The smattering of condo projects doting east of downtown? Oakland is the anti-development city. The HT project would be the first significant development since the Coliseum.
California is sitting on a huge surplus ($97B), half of which goes to education (https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/05/13/newsom-california-budget-proposal-may-2022/). So approve it already. CA is a $3.4 trillion economy. There is a ton of money to go around. GET IT DONE OAKLAND!!!
When people are priced out of the Bay Area they stay. Lets just price more people out of the middle class and create more homelessness. If people should have a say as whether that is acceptable.
Don’t complain about Astroturf and special interest when you won’t let the people vote
Amen to that, Matthew.
The sheer hypocrisy involved in the advocates of a multi billion dollar project complaining about special interest groups getting in their way is staggering.
IF HT is such an opportunity, the city should open it up for RFP submissions so it can see what other ventures might be suitable for the plot. Some might not even involve handing $1Bn to a GAP heir… you never know.
Judging by that rendering it looks like the A’s want all that money to build half a ballpark.
Not one ad board in sight.
The kid in the hat is pointing to the restroom that’s a good 15 minute walk from the outfield steerage section.
Kid: Daddy, why aren’t we sitting down there?
Dad: Because son, the tickets are just too expensive for us.
And… is the Hughes-guy wearing a facemask?
Disgraceful. Good news is only 5 more months until this rubber stamp council goes bye bye. I listened into the meeting and the passion was coming from those opposed. The supporters would end the call saying a tagline ” its more the baseball”
Absolutely! It is more than baseball! It is more than a billion dollars (and maybe much, much more) in public money being transferred to a billionaire!
And really, isn’t that what America (and democracy, more broadly) is really all about?
You don’t get to be a billionaire by risking your own money.
In Fisher’s case, he got to be a billionaire by carefully selecting his Mommy and Daddy and making sure they were among the most likely of all possible parents to start a very successful clothing chain.
That sure seems like a lot of hard work to me.
Amid all that happened in real life on the 4th of July this proposal should be D.O.A.
Four people inside the Oakland Coliseum, waiting for a postgame fireworks show, got hit by fragments from bullets fired outside the ballpark. You can’t even go to a ballgame in Oaktown without the risk of taking a stray bullet.
Vegas wouldn’t be much of an improvement in that regard:
https://news3lv.com/news/local/man-shot-and-killed-near-sahara-las-vegas-boulevard
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/woman-injured-by-stray-bullet-fired-into-las-vegas-apartment/
Maybe the A’s could try moving to Australia?
Should the Athletics move to Las Vegas, they would set up shop in suburban Summerlin in the ballpark currently used by their Triple-A club.
https://www.costcoinsider.com/shooting-at-costco-summerlin/
I agree that this proposal is laughable and should be voted down immediately. However, there were numerous shooting incidents across the nation on July 4th that had nothing to do with baseball (including this one)… as the news media regularly points out, America is averaging more than 1 mass shooting a day so far this year.
If “blaming Oakland” for the shooting outside the stadium is where we are going, maybe no-one should go to Dodger stadium either.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/san-francisco-giants-fan-bryan-stow-coma-attacked/story?id=13298349
There are, of course, dozens of other incidents that have happened adjacent to sporting stadiums, concerts, casinos etc.
I am just waiting to see if Fisher & co will follow MGM Resorts lead on this and file suit against the fans who were injured – in part for failing to take reasonable measures to protect themselves.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/07/17/mgm-resorts-sues-victims-las-vegas-massacre-denies-liability/791511002/
At this point, literally nothing would surprise me
That MGM lawsuit is the hight of bad taste and cynicism…..
A little rested: I follow some of the goings on in my small-ish town, occasionally watching town council meetings and some of the discussions and votes.
I find it interesting how even in that setting money plays a part: such-and-such wants to build a something and they’ll lobby hard to get it just so.
The results of votes sometimes are hard to interpret. Did they say yay? Nay? Push it down the road?
Sometimes you’ll see some elected official saying something that seems odd, walking out, or not being present.
It’s just bizarre in many ways, and a wonder that things get done.
Gotta love government business. I guess?
Does Oakland get enough rainfall to support all that vegetation? These drawing look more like a botanic garden.
An excellent question mb. We’re going to up the subsidy demand to $1.2Bn just to make sure we have enough money to pay for water or a desalination plant for the field/grounds without cutting into team profits.
Thanks for the tip!
*nb: the desal plant will be for team and stadium use only. Area residents will not be able to access that water supply without paying.
A 21st Century “Coogan’s Bluff”? (I’m referring to the sloping hills, not the threat to leave town.)
With all this talk of shootings here, it really should be referred to as a grassy knoll.
LOL