Day 2 of Oakland A’s owner John Fisher’s threat to hold his breath until he turns blue move his team out of town if he doesn’t get $855 million in “infrastructure” spending from the city of Oakland was all about the principals being interviewed on daytime TV and radio talk shows, apparently, which provided every bit as much enlightening journalism as you would expect. First off, we have A’s stadium czar Dave Kaval explaining to KNBR’s Papa & Lund (who “delight the Bay Area with their unique combination of loose and informative sports talk“) why the Oakland Coliseum site isn’t acceptable for a new stadium, if by “explaining” you mean “propagandizing”:
“The site here is really a manifestation of the 1960s design for ballparks and sports venues,” Kaval told Papa & Lund on Wednesday. “Destination, lots of on-site parking, just kind of like in a big parking lot. That was all over the country. That was in places like Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium (Braves) and Riverfront (Reds) and all these stadiums across the country. Candlestick was kind of like that.
“But that model has shifted. All the modern stadiums since the 90s and Camden Yards have really been built in these downtown urban corridors and been really successful. Obviously Oracle Park is an example of that, so is Petco Park down in San Diego, and that is really the model that we’re looking for in success in baseball.”
Except that’s not entirely true: The areas around the Baltimore Orioles‘ Camden Yards, the San Francisco Giants‘ Oracle Park, and the San Diego Padres‘ Petco Park are considered “downtown urban corridors” today, yes, but none of them especially were before the stadiums were built. And if we’re talking “all the modern stadiums,” then we have to include the Atlanta Braves‘ new stadium, which was built way out in the suburbs with a faux-urban mixed-use development around it; not to mention the New York Yankees‘ and Mets‘ new stadiums, neither of which is anywhere near downtown (and which in the Mets’ case is still surrounded by parking lots).
And more important, the Oakland Coliseum may currently sit in a sea of parking lots, but, especially in the red-hot East Bay real estate market, there’s nothing stopping Fisher from building a new neighborhood on that site the same way he hopes to at Howard Terminal, which is currently a sea of shipping containers. Kaval could have more honestly argued that the Coliseum site might not be as lucrative as building at Howard Terminal after Oakland taxpayers spent $855 million to spruce up the local roads, but presumably that didn’t play as well with the focus groups.
(I should also note that KNBR’s accompanying article misstated something itself about the A’s stadium plan, citing ESPN as reporting “the public’s share of the approximately $12 billion project at $2.2 billion,” a figure that’s been repeated elsewhere as well. That’s because ESPN’s Jeff Passan did some uncharacteristically sloppy writing in describing the terms of the deal, lumping together the $855 million in city infrastructure spending with projections of $450 million in community benefits to the city and $955 million in new general fund revenues for the city — those last two figures are likely pretty bogus for reasons we’ve covered previously, but either way they’re public benefits, not public costs. The taxpayer price tag on this remains $855 million, which is still a crazy amount of money, mind you, but it’s important to be accurate about these things.)
Moving over to KGO’s Midday Live (“More local news, more local weather, more local hot topics“), we find Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf clapping back against Fisher’s demands by … okay, actually she pretty much made his case for him, saying she “appreciates” MLB commissioner Rob Manfred for emphasizing that “a new waterfront ballpark is the only path to keeping the A’s in Oakland,” and responding to a question about whether $855 million was too high a price tag like this:
“The A’s are privately financing the ballpark itself. But for this ballpark to be successful, we will need to make transportation improvements beyond the ballpark. And deliver community benefits that our community expects. Particularly to make sure this project does not cause displacement or gentrification…
“What we need is for our other regional partners to participate: The port, the county, the state. We all will see incredible revenues if this project gets built. Contributing some of those new project-based revenues is the key to getting this done. We have gotten a lot done over this year. I am confident we can get this over the finish line.”
Translation: I don’t want to spend $855 million in city money, but $855 million in city plus county plus state money? That’d be cool. Discuss amongst yourselves whether this is a massive betrayal of Schaaf’s principles that not a dime of public funds should be spent on sports stadiums or a clever gambit to get taxpayers in the rest of the state to pay for new roads and bridges in her city by piggybacking on Fisher’s threat.
KGO also has its own interview with Kaval in which he says that the $855 million in city money isn’t really city money, because “we pay the city that money, and then they use it for that infrastructure.” First off, hey, that’s the Casino Night Fallacy! And secondly, that’s not just the A’s owners paying the taxes that they’re demanding be kicked back:

(Area to be developed by the A’s is in gray.)
Where all this ends up is anyone’s guess, but fortunately in our modern world we have the gambling industry to make those guesses for us. A Forbes “contributor” (i.e., unpaid writer) notes that the betting odds (not clear on from which source) have the A’s eventual destinations ranked in this order: Las Vegas (7-4), Montreal (5-1), Charlotte (6-1), Portland (6-1), San Antonio (8-1), Nashville (11-1), Indianapolis (12-1), San Jose (12-1), Austin (14-1), Oklahoma City (14-1), Vancouver (14-1), Louisville (16-1).
You can also bet on whether the A’s will relocate by the end of 2022, and while the odds are slightly against it — a $100 bet on them moving will earn you $110 in winnings, while a $150 bet on them staying put will only earn you $100 — the very fact that none of those cities listed currently have stadiums for the A’s to move into or could build one in the next year and a half would seem to make a “no” bet some pretty easy money. Unless “relocate” means announce a relocation down the road, not actually pack up and go? Maybe better check the fine print before you put down your life savings on this one.