I’ve written here before about cities and teams that are looking for a cut of federal infrastructure money to help in building sports venues, now that there’s that trillion-dollar infrastructure bill hanging out there like so much fresh meat. Mostly that’s been a few million here and there, but Oakland mayor-for-another-few-weeks Libby Schaaf, who has about a half-billion-dollar budget hole for an A’s stadium even after putting in $495 million in city infrastructure money, has previously talked about seeking $180 million in “federal grants.” And now we know where that money would come from, and of course it’s the infrastructure bill. As Oakland urban policy advocate Kitty Kelly Epstein wrote in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed:
Thanks to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Mega Grant program, communities across the country have been asked to identify their highest-priority projects in the first round of long-needed transportation investment funding to help make U.S. transit safer, more efficient and resilient to future challenges…
Mayor Libby Schaaf’s administration applied for a $182 million Mega Grant to help fund what it describes as a “waterfront mobility hub” at Howard Terminal in Jack London Square. In reality, though, the grant would help billionaire Oakland A’s owner John Fisher develop his $12 billion proposal for luxury condos and a stadium far more than it would the public.
The Mega Grant program — MEGA here stands for National Infrastructure Project Assistance, because of course it does — includes a total of $5 billion to be provided this year to local governments for highways, bridges, freight rail, passenger rail, or other “critical large” transportation projects that “would otherwise be unachievable without assistance.” It’s money that the feds are going to spend one way or another anyway, yes; on the other hand, it’s also a finite pool of money, so if $182 million of it goes to the A’s, that’s $182 million that some other city doesn’t get for building some other road or bridge or rail line, which might benefit more people than just one sports team owner.
(And yes, new transit will benefit A’s fans trying to get to the game, but right now they have a stadium they can get to just fine when there’s anything worth seeing there, so it’s hard to see it as that much of a public good vs. a private one.)
Epstein notes that Oakland “residents, stakeholders and experts were never asked how they might want to spend a Mega Grant. No hearings; no webinars; no surveys — not even consideration for existing projects in Oakland’s Capital Improvement Plan.” All of which is par for the course in sports subsidy deals: Part of the challenge is shaking loose public money, but sometimes it’s more about shoving your way to the front of the line for money that already exists. It’s unclear whether the transportation department will look kindly on Schaaf’s pitch — City Administrator Ed Reiskin was previously skeptical — but either way, Oakland’s mayor who used to decry spending public money on sports teams using her city’s power to ask that federal infrastructure money be funneled away from established transportation priorities and toward the local sports billionaire is a sign of the political times, if nothing else. The Gang of Four isn’t turning out to be very hardline after all.
“shoving your way to the front of the line for money that already exists”
Or in the case of the so-called infrastructure bill, money that doesn’t exist. It will be created out of thin air.
Only as much as any money is. The feds will likely sell bonds to raise the funds, which means either raising taxes down the road to pay them off, or cutting back on other spending to do the same.
The point I was making was that arguing that “well, this money is going to be spent anyway” is a facetious one, because if Oakland wins the grant, it means some other city won’t get that $182m. And while there’s no guarantee that other city would have spent the money on something that was more of a public good, it’d be hard for them to find something that was less of one.
Even IF they got the whole $182m (which reportedly they won’t and Oakland knows this), Howard Terminal would STILL be a pain in the a$$ to get to/get out of! Especially for the vast majority of A’s fans that reside outside of Oakland and who rely on 880/BART. Those Mayflower trucks loaded yet for the desert?..
So what is Oakland supposed to do Neil? Let other cities get the funds because other cities have a “better” use for those funds than Oakland? I want my politicians to have sharp elbows and fight for their constituencies. Not roll over because Denver or Portland has a more “noble” use for those funds.
Oakland has not had a major construction project since forever. It’s time. Oakland will always be Oakland regardless of how those funds are spent, but it sure as heck would be nice to have a Gem on the waterfront to show for it!!!
I think the op-ed was pretty clear: Oakland should be asking for transportation money for projects that more than one extremely wealthy constituent would benefit from.
No no no, a ballpark is way too trite, that won’t put Oakland on the map! Those rubes in Denver or Portland could never imagine… the world’s largest pyre of burning money, perpetually aflame next to the waterfront. Oakland’s transportation infrastructure is clearly already perfect, so this is the only sensible way to get “your” money…
“Oakland has not had a major construction project since forever. It’s time. Oakland will always be Oakland regardless of how those funds are spent, but it sure as heck would be nice to have a Gem on the waterfront to show for it!!!”
“has not had a major construction project since forever”
Quantify “forever” vs the cubic zirconium of a waterfront ballpark:
Brooklyn Basin (formerly “Oak to Ninth Mixed Use Development”)
https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/brooklyn-basin-formerly-oak-to-ninth-mixed-use-development