Six months after a Nevada court booted a referendum on repealing the state’s Oakland A’s $600 million stadium subsidy, an appeals court judge ruled yesterday upholding the booting. This means no vote this fall, with the Nevada teachers union having to instead rewrite the referendum language and try again in 2026.
(The reason for this ruling is the same as the last one, and is boring and technical and has to do with whether the referendum language needs to include the entirety of the bill it would be repealing or just the sections it would be repealing, among other things. Rewriting the language was an option back in November, but the union decided to go with an appeal instead, which didn’t work out so well.)
Needless to say, holding a referendum in 2026 to block a stadium that could begin construction in 2024 — theoretically, if A’s owner John Fisher ever decides exactly where to build it or how to pay for it — would require tricky legal gymnastics or time travel or both. (In 2002, St. Louis residents voted to repeal a Cardinals stadium subsidy that had been passed just the month before; a court eventually threw it out as too late to be enforceable.) It’s possible that the mere threat of a referendum down the road could make it harder for Fisher to raise money, but that’s a lot less of a concern for him if it’d be in two more years rather than this November.
The union still has a lawsuit pending claiming that the entire stadium plan was unconstitutional for various even more technical reasons, though I don’t believe that has a hearing date set yet. It looks like the A’s move to Vegas is going to end up being a race against various different clocks, though given that Fisher’s progress in firming up stadium plans appears to be going backwards if anything, it’s a race that it looks like neither side can win.
Sad. Knocked, but NOT outta da fight. There’s a bit of comfort in knowing Fisher himself is his biggest road block on that boulevard to baseball nirvana. Green & Gold Forever! Mister Mause deserves some coffee money soon, for all the stories tracking here. Thanks.
#FJF til the end of eternity!
The rumblings are that Ballys will sell. That kinda throws a wrench in everything. A new owner doesn’t need to give 9 acres to a baseball team
2002? How long you been writing for this thing?
https://demause.net/fos/news/news1998.html
It’s hard to ignore the obvious parallels to the Coyotes situation – an unpopular owner with only a vague plan for a new facility wants to stash his team in an inadequate facility for some indeterminant number of seasons.
And, as such, I have to wonder if some MLB owners might not see that as a model for what they could do here.
They could promise Fisher he could have a Vegas expansion team at well below the going rate if and when he builds an MLB stadium in Vegas.
In exchange for that generous offer, Fisher may be willing to sell the A’s to somebody who could keep them in the Bay Area, or at worst, move them to a city with at least a viable plan for a proper stadium – Portland, Nashville, Salt Lake, Greensboro, Fargo, Quebec City, Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, or whatever.
Then again, the MLB owners may not really keep up with current events, so they probably haven’t thought of any of that.
Hey, now wait a minute! this is pro sports and its’ about money that might be for more important things! why is the Supreme Court/ politicians helping the A’s move?
I didn’t know they even cared about sports that much! are they so worried about the A’s future or don’t think Oakland deserves a pro sports team.
If I was a L.V./ NV guy I might feel different but I do know its’ strange they are helping the A’s get public money from NV after they got it for the Raiders.