A letter from Oakland City Attorney John Russo gave a Rajon Rondo-on-Brad Miller style slap to Lew Wolff. Zennie Abraham quickly jumped on it, as did Robert Gammon. I'm sure the comments section will be full of people going back and forth yet again on the subject, so I won't bother rehashing history for the umpteenth time.
Abraham somehow managed to bury the lead in his blog post by not acknowledging in text what he said in his vlog - discussions with the A's and the Blue Ribbon Committee are not going well. That development is anything but surprising, given the committee's makeup. Matier and Ross reported on yesterday's meeting between Wolff and Dellums. Fittingly, the meeting was derailed by a planned fire drill, forcing the parties to move the proceedings elsewhere.
Russo isn't going to pen a legal brief on his own, he has orders. He may have done it at the behest of the Mayor or City Council. Abraham speculates that it's a step towards pitting Oakland and the Giants against the A's and MLB. He even trots out old Rule 52, which as I'll explain later, is not applicable these days.
Let's take the confrontation angle first. As noted previously, the Giants don't have a legal option to exercise regarding territorial rights. It's in the ML Agreement, and Maury Brown spelled this out in his reading of the ML Constitution in a 2005 Hardball Times series:
If there are any disputes or controversies between the clubs, or between club(s) and any of MLB’s entities, and if the resolution isn’t expressed elsewhere in the Constitution, the Major League Rules, the Basic Agreement with the MLBPA, or the collective bargaining agreement with the Major League Umpires, the Commissioner serves as the sole arbitrator. (Article VI Sec.1)What recourse do the Giants have, then? They can try to go to bat for Oakland, even though they have no history of doing that previously. Even though, in moving to China Basin, they've actively siphoned East Bay fans away from the A's. Even though they've held a regional hegemony for decades. It wouldn't be hard to posture themselves as saviors of baseball in Oakland - no matter how strange that sounds - as it wouldn't require much effort and could be done in a sort of stealth mode. It wouldn't be difficult to get a few letters from prominent pols in order, so no problem there either. The best part is for the Giants is that it works. It paints Wolff as a villain and Oakland as a victim, despite the backstory's greater complexity.
Problem is, behind all of the sizzle there isn't much, if any, steak. For Oakland to be successful, there still needs to be an actual ballpark deal in place. The Giants know firsthand what it means to fail to get a stadium built, they've understood it many times over. All of this posturing is fantastic if you're trying to win a war in the media, it's not good for getting anything done. Could the Giants be brazen enough to goad Oakland into a lawsuit against the A's and MLB? The A's and Oakland are only tied together via a lease deal at the Coliseum. As valued as history and tradition are, they are largely intangible. Collusion? R-i-i-i-ght. Does Oakland really want to go down the path of trying to prove that? They're not the only ones with documents.
Would the Giants try to bring Bob Piccinini out of the woodwork to do the same? Ironically, Vincent Piazza sued MLB over the Giants' aborted move to Tampa-St. Pete, and eventually got $6 million to go away. Unlike Piazza's almost immediate action, a move to sue now would likely be beyond any statute of limitations. The fact is that suing to keep a team in town, even if you have a good case, isn't much of a winner. It certainly didn't work for Seattle.
Make no mistake, the Giants aren't taking the T-rights matter lying down. It isn't simply a matter of them being quickly and/or cheaply paid off. They want to defend their territory as vigorously as possible, and I don't blame them. It's really a matter of whether or not their whining will get more than a token acknowledgment as MLB looks towards further stabilizing the league as a whole.
As for Rule 52, even if it were in place (which isn't verifiable at this point), it isn't applicable to an A's move to San Jose. It applies to moves near an established territory, not an invasion of a territory. It would've been applicable to an A's move to Fremont, since either ballpark site was only 5 miles from the Santa Clara County line. Yet, did Peter Magowan raise a big fuss about it? Nope. Contrary to popular belief, it would've been applicable to the Expos' move because portions of DC are within the 15-mile O's territory buffer. Yet while Peter Angelos objected in the end, Rule 52 was nowhere to be found.
How bizarre would a lawsuit look? Oakland, backed by the Giants, would allege collusion between the A's ownership and MLB. The A's would probably counter that the antitrust exemption is keeping them from moving to San Jose. San Jose/Santa Clara County, not the A's, would sue MLB and the Giants, thereby threatening the antitrust exemption. I'm sure that Bud Selig's stockpiled a ton of antacid just in case.
53 comments:
I don't really see what exactly he is trying to gain by doing this. It just makes Oaklands case weaker in keeping the A's because it makes it even clearer that the A's no longer want to be there, and that Oakland's losing them.
Wow, interesting post. That's a lot to absorb. For now all I can say is "the meeting was derailed by a planned fire drill." What a joke.
First off, Abraham is a complete idiot! His piece is complete garbage. He needs to look at a map to see where SJ is relative to AT&T Park. Second, Larry Bare himself stated the territorial issue would be dealt with by MLB. The Giants would stupid to attach themselves to some legal BS from Oakland. That would not look good in the eyes of the lodge. I think the Giants are smart enough to know this.
With city officials like John Russo it's no wonder the A's want to leave town.
Threatening to sue, to block the A's from moving 30 miles down the road, just 4 weeks after the blue ribbon commission was established confirms pretty much what Wolff and the previous 2 ownership groups learned about Oakland--it doesn't and will not have it's act together---this is nothing more than an act of desperation by the city of Oakland---what will be classic is when Al pulls up stakes and heads out of Oakland too--wonder what he would say about Russo's letter--and if Bud needed anymore convincing that Oakland is not viablesomething tells me he got it from Russo's letter---Wolff might get his wish and the blue ribbon committee will wrap things up sooner than later about the viability of Oakland--
Okay, so lets say that the A's pick up shop and move to San Jose, and the 49'ers decide that they are not interested in the idea of a shared stadium with the Raiders.
What are the chances that the demolish the existing Coliseum and build a new stadium on top of it?
Zonis---money talks--and I don't see where Oakland/Alameda County will have any money to contribute when they are on the hook for $20M/year through 2018 (I believe)---city of Santa Clara is contributing 10% of the 1 billion for the '9ers stadium--my bet on the Raiders--its either shared or they will be that one team playing down south in City of Industry
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Russo's letter was written at the behest of anyone but himself. Russo, as the elected City Attorney, doesn't answer to the Mayor or City Council, and frequently takes action without direction from either. Since many speculate that he has higher political ambitions, it's not difficult to imagine that he would see the A's issue as one where he can gain supporters and boost name recognition.
Anonymous 9:48, the Raiders are not really a candidate to relocate back to LA contrary to the commonly held belief by many. The new proposed stadium in LA by Roski will require a team giving some controlling interest in their team, the Davis Family will not sell any controlling interest of Raiders to anybody, only non controlling interest. The team mostly likely to relocate to LA is the Chargers. The owners of the Chargers and Roski have connections and are friends with each other.
The Raiders and even Al Davis himself have stated they like the convenience of the Coliseum Area and Amy Trask mentioned the possibility of building a new stadium North of the Coliseum or perhaps a massive renovation of the Coliseum itself. The Coliseum land is already freely available and also has the existing BART Station. The Raiders actually have more options than the 49ers who are putting all their stadium hopes in Santa Clara. I wouldn't be shocked if the Santa Clara deal fell threw and its the 49ers that are crawling to the Raiders asking if they can have a joint stadium deal with the Raiders at the Coliseum Complex. The NFL itself actually wants the Raiders and 49ers to share a stadium together some way some how.
As for Oakland and their dispute with the A's, they really need to just cut their losses with the A's and keep their focus on the Raiders and Warriors. Some would argue that Oakland is better suited as a football market than a baseball market. I believe San Jose can support the A's and become a very viable baseball market.
Anon 11:27--agree with you on the A's and what is best for them--challenge I see for the Raiders is the money angle---$20M of continuing debt on the current Colisieum debacle---and your going to have to go find another $1B to build a new stadium in the parking lot of the existing one--Al/Amy will say all the right things until you tell them they have to pay for it---have a hard time believing that they will be willing to put up $700-$900M like the '9ers are proposing for SC---
Anonymous 11:52, I don't disagree that building a brand new football stadium will be cheap, it won't especially in this economy. But I think this stadium funding factor is an issue for both the Raiders and the 49ers. Both teams have revenue issues from playing all these years in their current antiquated stadiums. The 49ers may say they will pledge a "broad figure" of $700-$900 but I have my doubts they really have that much more in funds to work with than the Raiders in this economy. Its true there is the existing debt at the Coliseum from the last renovation, but in a pinch the Coliseum could possibly be renovated into a football only stadium, which would be more cost effective than building a brand new stadium. The 49ers don't have this option with Candlestick Park.
Unless I am mistaken, I have heard the 49ers may do an EIR report at the Santa Clara site for "Two" NFL teams which would seem to suggest that they may need help paying for their proposed stadium. I don't think the Raiders and 49ers are totally against sharing a stadium together, the disagreement would most likely be about location, with 49ers wanting Santa Clara and the Raiders wanting the Coliseum Complex. I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL played the role of arbitrator in the near future in helping the Raiders and 49ers complete a joint stadium project somewhere in the Bay Area, with both teams paying for the new stadium off coarse.
Let's see: the Giants privately financed their ballpark, which angered many a MLB owner, and then went on to allow a drug dealer unlimited access to their clubhouse. Do we really think they're now going to sue MLB through the city of Oakland? I think not. The irony of all this talk is that the Giants would make more money through compensation for SJ/SCC then they would spend via an Oakland lawsuit. I'm pretty sure Neukom/Baer are smarter then that.
Just make the Bay Area a shared territory like LA, Chicago, and NYC and be done with all this nonsense : Rule 52, unequal territorial rights, a city of one million being banned from obtaining MLB, sore looser lawsuits, etc. Shared territory's!
ML,
Don't the "prominent pols" you mentioned in your post also represent San Jose and Santa Clara Co.? Not just SF and Oakland? Let's not underestimate the power of Silicon Valley politics and big business. Nice post by the way.
thanks for this summary/
has there been any news on Oakland's committee to build a new ballpark? any members named, plans talked about, etc..
and has wolfe responded to any of this stuff recently?
and will mlb release anything from it's blue ribbon thing soon or at all?
ugh. this will go on forever.
The legal angle will likely go nowhere unless the territorial rights agreement between the Giants ownership group and MLB contained a provision declaring that it supersedes or operates outside the MLB operating agreement(can't believe Bud would have agreed to that).
tarmas
So Oakland has another chance to show what it can do..this time for the blue ribbon committee---and its decision is to threaten to sue MLB among others---WOW!! Still no substance, no stadium site, no nothing---this has dragged on far too long---and is costing the A's a chance to build when construction costs are way down--look at all the transit projects that are coming in 25-40% below estimates---how much longer will MLB let this sideshow continue?
ML,
I like your method of putting the average fan ahead of the suite holder. But isn't the practice of using columns to cantilever an upper deck taboo because of obstructed views? Or is the practice coming back in some of the recent ballparks?
ML,
AT&T Park was built within 15 miles of the Alameda County line (A's territory). If this Rule 52 is still in place, then AT&T Park should be demolished immediately. In other words, the rule obviously doesn't apply in the Bay Area. Further proof that Z. Abraham is full of it!
...a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound an fury, signifying nothing...
Still a bunch of haters in San Jose.
anon 3:44---yawn....
Interesting how many posters here gloss over the content in John Russo's letter.
John Russo is telling the truth when he basically calls Lew Wolff and MLB, liars. That's the bottom line. The man is telling it like it is.
Wolff has lied repeatably when making statements regarding attempting to build that ballpark in Oakland. It's clear that Lew Wolff, and Steve Schott before him, had plans to leave Oakland from the get go. Oakland has never had a shot at retaining this team. The lies about the Uptown site being the site of choice for the A's have finally been exposed in Russo's statement. I knew that to be the case since I was at that City Hall demonstration, with hundreds of other A's fans, showing support for the Uptown site, when A's owner Steve Schott failed to even send a low level representative.
The City of Oakland was defrauded of it's baseball team when Bud Selig, in collusion with Steve Schott and the other owners, established a "blue ribbon commission" to delay and expire the legal time frame per the contract between Steve Schott and the City of Oakland to sell the A's to buyers committed to keeping the team in Oakland at a discount.
That's the exact point in time that Oakland lost its baseball team. Since that time the focus has been on relocating the A's out of Oakland. This franchise has been run with a one foot out the door mentality for many years.
Also, Oakland has more fans attending A's games per capita than any other city in the Bay Area. The Oakland A's are an important part of the fabric and history of this town. I applaud John Russo for having the courage to tell the truth, and stand up for all Oakland A's fans who believe that loyalty to a community which has supported this franchise for over 40 years, is extremely important. Oakland deserves much more than being defrauded of its baseball team.
Either Oakland City officials are totally incompetent or they don't really want to help find the A's find a new home in Oakland. They still don't have a ballpark committee, a site or any sort of a semblance of a plan for how to keep the A's in Oakland. They do, however, seem to be working really hard at pointing fingers and make it look they are doing something when they are really doing nothing.
I find it quite sad because I still think that a new ballpark in the right spot in Oakland can still work for the A's. Unfortunately, this relationship has been doomed since the return of the Raiders.
gojohn10- credit to you as a city of Oakland supporter to call it like it is---fingers are pointing every which way but where they should be--at the Oakland city leadership---it is time to move on--enough time has been wasted on the Oakland pipedream-
You guys are all pretty clueless with what Oakland is doing. Just because they're not "publicly" announcing to the whole world what they're doing doesn't mean they don't have people working very hard on this. I happened to know for a FACT that they are and have been tirelessly. I happened to have a really reliable source on the inside who knows what's going on. I even knew a week prior to Zennie's web blog posting the story regarding Lew Wolff on a "short leash."
Trust me folks, Oakland is working very hard and quickly to get a plan together and they just aren't being loud about it. They have the brains, political power and the support from the East Bay to make it happen and they will keep the team at home.
I'm sorry to say it folks(San Jose partisans) but you guys are all just wishful thinking on this. It's NOT gonna happen. The A's won't be going anywhere for sometime. I've been saying this for years. I even said long before that the Fremont deal would never happen.
Seriously, we should just start focusing our discussions on making suggestions on how the new ballpark in OAKLAND can and will be frickin' awesome!!!
No offense, 9:22, but I put out a call for ideas in Oakland, but got zero response.
Here's what I don't get. If Oakland is so gung-ho about getting a site and stadium plan ready, why is the only news coming out of there negative? You hear about guys complaining about ownership, or trying to score political points. How productive is it to hear that as opposed to buzz surrounding an actual stadium plan? I don't doubt that the task force is doing their level best to get something together. But if all of these parties aren't all on the same page, it's going to be that much harder to present something credible. It'll be even more difficult for it to look good for MLB.
Anon 9:22
You are right that I am clueless as to what is going on in Oakland because I haven't heard a damn thing. Why does all this so-called planning have to be so secretive?
I like how Anon 9:22 likes to say that the A's investor group is pissed at Wolff for Fremont and "has him on a short leash" while the other Oakland bloggers on here are calling him a mastermind conspirator who planned the Fremont failure in order to get to SJ--at some point boys you gotta put something on the table--hard for Oakland to stay credible when nothing tangible has or is being developed---and other than Anon 9:22 highly reliable source---ain't nobody claiming anything is going on for Oakland--
just remember that perception is reality for many folks--so it doesn't make alot of sense to stay secretive when the whole objective is to build excitment that Oakland is actually doing something...
I believe anon 9:22 and I have definitely not given up on the idea of them staying in Oakland. I say lets just wait and see where the A's end up before we start getting into this all back and forth city bashing again...but my guess is also that they will end up in Oakland.
Why is the Oakland side of things always steeped in mythology and hyperbole? I'm sure Russo is now a fair and noble warrior who hath slain thy dragon Wolff, yes? It's like they think writing more will convince us that they are saying something. I'm still not hearing or reading anything of substance. The line in the sand only gets wider and more ornate. Wolff lies, Selig steals, politicians will save us, our city attorney called yo mama fat, blah blah blah...
I, for one, am tired of this wait and see attitude. How about a peek at what Oakland is working on to give some of us who are about to give up hope something to hang our hats on?
OK, we get it! Russo's right, Wolff's a liar, and Oakland has a secret kick-ass ballpark plan that can't loose (site, financing, corporate sponsorship, etc.). WE GET IT! Problem is, it doesn't matter. The A's are privately owned and they, and MLB, can do whatever the hell they want ; regardless of what who in Oakland has to write or say. End of discussion!
I just wanna see some progress. Havn't heard anything for a long while.
I love it. As if Navigator's mumblings aren't enough, we now have the double-secret Oakland plan for world domination. Keep those tin-foil hats nice and shiny people!!!
from about a month a go (some oakland meeting) this video of that meeting,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR5DRN4ASlA
at 18:33 into the video you can see the plans, so you dont have to watch all 18mins right off the bat.
and this website
http://www.oaklandfans.com/ballpark/
the plan labeled Coliseum Plan is similar but it looks like the stadium has been moved to the south side.
i can't tell if this is the current cisco field design or something different.
Tony D. In Da Islands said...taking my San Jose partisan hat off, I'm glad to see that after 15 years, and in the manner of only 3 months, Oakland has finally got a ballpark plan together (albeit secret at this point). Can't wait to see the details : site, financing method, corporate sponsors. I'm excited for Oakland partisans and can't wait to see the details. RM, when can we expect this secret project to be unveiled? Aloha!
Anon 11:15,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but those links you provide are to ideas put forth by community activists.You might as well add links from this blog b/c ML has come up with more ideas than I have heard from all of Oakland (and I only included about half of ML's Oakland site overviews -- see the front page of this blog). What are Oakland city officials doing?
gojohn,
No offense to ML (great work by the way), but you only see all his ideas because he has his own blog that he's been updating for the past several years that's dedicated to ideas and news regarding a new ballpark for the A's.
Like anon 9:22 pointed out, just because they're not being public about it doesn't mean they're not doing anything. I've actually heard that Lew Wolff has met with Oakland officials on a few occasions over the past several weeks (not including the recent fire alarm interruption) which also was never publicly announced. ML and Zennie wouldn't have even heard about these meetings...trust me.
Take San Jose for instance...I'm sure they're still doing what they can on their end, but you haven't heard anything coming from San Jose officials lately either. That doesn't mean they're not coming up with their own strategies in the meantime.
All I know is that the media has done a great job with manipulating what the public sees and hears. I've heard from another very good source that LW does feel like it's the media that's making it seems like the relationship between the A's and the city of Oakland is much much worse than they really are.
Another reliable source has indicated that Lew Wolff has made it pretty clear to Oakland officials that he's still very much open to ideas that the city can come up with. Just because Oakland hasn't made any official announcements over the past month certainly doesn't mean they're just sitting around waiting for the team to move away.
2:02
Maybe then they should keep all the negative comments private too.
San Jose's plans, as they stand, are out in the open, in concurrence with local sunshine law. They've outlined the required steps for the next couple of months. They'll have updated documentation at that point upon which they can make a decision. At this point there's nothing to meet in secret about. They're letting the process take care of itself.
What upsets me is that in Oakland there's rumormongering and loose cannons. I know that it sounds hypocritical to call that out from a blog that often trades in rumor and innuendo, but I'm not a decision maker. I have that latitude because I have little to lose. In the end, coming from Oakland it comes off as disorganized, passive aggressive, and not unified. I want the A's to get a ballpark somewhere in the Bay Area. I don't want Oakland to shoot itself in the foot trying to accomplish that.
I love the anon comments about hidden FACTS from reliable and trusted sources. If you have the ear of these amazing people can you get them to comment about what they are proposing? Just a press release saying that they are actually doing something? Maybe list who the groups are? Just to calm down the restless natives? Let someone in an authoritative position say something to the media instead of relying on anon sources to spread the good word? I'd love to hear how they plan on getting something done in Oakland while its facing such a huge deficit and the future cutback of services, but I imagine that's a bit wishful thinking on my part. I'll just take ANY word from someone actively working on enticing the A's to stay in Oakland.
I heard LW was meeting with Portland AND Vancouver AND the Philippines last week. trust me! ;)
I agree with a lot of what Russo has to say in the letter, but don't think this is the right approach at all. The letter is overly political and accusatory. Threats and name-calling are not a good look for Oakland. It seems like Russo wants to alienate the A's and the MLB, which leaves Oakland with no allies besides the Giants perhaps. The whole "Lords of Baseball" thing is a pretty dumb gimmick. I still believe that Oakland can and should keep the A's, but with this kind of leadership we don't stand a chance.
Dbackman,
It's important to point out the truth. Lew Wolff and MLB will use Oakland's silence and fill the information gap with their lies and distortions. It's important that Oakland A's fans, along with the media, understand why Oakland is in this situation fighting for its baseball team.
Oakland has reached out to these owners time after time, even spending $200,000 on the HOK architectural drawings and studies. The response from Steve Schott and now Lew Wolff has always been a cold shoulder and a slap in the face. In the process, these owners have not only dismissed Oakland as a viable location for MLB, put have also inferred that the city is not a viable location for any businesses period.
The denigration of Oakland as a business community as an excuse to bolt out of town for perceived greener pastures, is inexcusable.
Nav, this is the problem. You and others like John Russo are as guilty of revisionist history as the A's are. Oakland's "silence" has been anything but. Their "reaching out time after time" has resulted in one major effort which did not have full support in city government.
This is a divorce. Both parties are going to get shots in because they feel it scores points for their side. For either party to not have some level of culpability in this mess is spin and intellectually dishonest. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead. It's not advancing the discourse, that's for sure.
Marine Layer, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't agree that the blame is equal in this situation.
We can't parse the truth. The truth is the truth and we compromise our integrity when we fail to recognize what is true and what is not. The history is clear, statements have been made, and records are available.
Navigator,
Everything is a conspiracy with you and it really does not help the cause that you and I both believe in. The argument about accessibility is a strong one, that Oakland will win on its merits. But the finger pointing gets us nowhere. However big a D-Bag Lew Wolff is, complaining about what jerks he and the MLB are will not keep the A's in Oakland.
There you go again. It's your truth, not the truth. You even went and parsed my words. I didn't say blame could be evenly distributed. I don't think it should. However, I don't know whether to assign to A's ownership 25%, 50%, 75%, or 90%. Any number at this point is completely arbitrary, pointless, and counterproductive. Both sides have made critical decisions to get us to this point. Everyone has to live with the consequences.
What will you say when the Blue Ribbon Committee eventually releases its report dinging Oakland? If you're really serious about sticking up for Oakland, then call John Russo about writing a lengthy, formal rebuttal. We can then see how serious Oakland truly is about defending its honor.
No Marine Layer, It's no MY truth or YOUR truth. There's only one truth. Also, this isn't about "defending Oakland's honor."
Do you really believe that this commission established by MLB and controlled by Bud Selig is impartial and will give Oakland a fair shot? This is a formality designed to wrestle the A's out of Oakland. Do you really believe that the leadership in Major League Baseball is interested in fairness considering what Bud Selig has said in the past regarding Oakland?
Major League Baseball and Lew Wolff want the A's out of Oakland. That's the bottom line. They will not listen because Lew Wolff long ago decided that he wanted to move the team close to the corporations in the South Bay.
This is just a formality and Oakland will get nowhere by sitting by quietly and allowing Lew Wolff and Bud Selig to paint a picture of the situation. Pretending that Oakland can reason with these individuals and get a fair look at any site in Oakland is pure fantasy. Oakland has already tried many times to be nice, stay quiet, and cooperate with Lew Wolff. It doesn't work and only allows Wolff to scapegoat Oakland.
Sorry Nav, the truth, if it is as unimpeachable as you say, does not have omissions as John Russo's legal brief does. To be completely honest, he should've included at least one mea culpa from Oakland, not just a case of victimhood. To ignore Oakland's mistakes here is to ignore a fundamental... truth.
If we agree that the committee is a setup, then all we are debating is whether or not you and John Russo are howling at the moon. If there is any hope of keeping the A's in Oakland, that is a severely misdirected energy.
One thing I don't understand is how Oakland partisans are perfectly content to let the Task Force do its job without some sense of urgency or political pressure. They need to do a lot more than hastily update a plan that's a few years old. If, in the end, that's the main option that comes out of their work, there will be questions about whether there was even a point in assembling the Task Force in the first place.
Marine Layer, I really believe that Oakland's only hope of keeping the team will be based on "the truth" of what happened as far as the history of the Andy Dolich/Robert Piccinini attempted purchase of the Oakland Athletics with the expressed intention of keeping them in Oakland. We will also have to look carefully at the "truth" of Lew Wolff's assertions that he tried to build this ballpark in Oakland.
If Oakland were dealing with people with integrity, fairness, and an open mind, then I would agree that a spirit of negotiation and cooperation would be the best way to go about it. Unfortunately, the fix has been in for a while, and the only hope Oakland has of keeping its baseball team is a legal one. It's unfortunate that it has come to that.
If that's the case, Oakland should be prepared to lose and deal with the cost and political fallout that'll come with the loss. Bigger cities with better legal footing and greater resources have fought these same battles to no avail.
Nav, I'd love to see you go to a City Council session, and during the comment period read a statement that says, "I support spending taxpayer funds on a lawsuit that may be the only chance to keep the A's in Oakland, their home for the last four decades, even though the chances of the suit succeeding are slim at best." I'm sure that'll go over like a lead balloon.
A lawsuit would be money down a rathole. The only expenditure of Oakland/Alameda County public funds that might make a difference is a significant contribution to the ballpark itself, to even out the substantial economic advantage of Silicon Valley. Of course, that's a political non-starter.
Post a Comment