Wolff officially rules out Coliseum

It's not a surprise, but Wolff has dismissed the Coliseum as a potential ballpark site, due to the previously mentioned conflicts with existing tenants (Warriors, Raiders) and lack of available surrounding land. Of course, a quick drive down Hegenberger would make one skeptical about that...

When asked about the Oak-to-9th site, Wolff declined comment and didn't reveal information on any new sites. There are now grumblings from the those that believe Wolff is being less than upfront about his efforts, which could pave the way for an exit from Oakland.

While it's a bit disconcerting that Wolff isn't actively involving the public in the search, he does speak to De La Fuente every two weeks to update the situation. But even DLF can only do so much. As Don Perata once said, "No stadium project goes through without the support of the mayor."

Where is the Estuary again?

I've gotten a lot of questions on the Estuary, mostly along the lines of "where is it?" or "how close is it to BART?" To help matters, I pieced together this graphic. Points of interest including Jack London Square and Lake Merritt are clearly visible, so it's easy to see where Oak-to-9th is in respect to everything else. The two main sections of the site are in light green (5th Avenue Marina) and dark green (9th Avenue Terminal). The pink section within the 5th Avenue Marina is the Silveira property, which is the one privately owned parcel on the site and the one which presents the greatest legal challenges (owner J.W. Silveira is suing Oakland over the inclusion of his property in the redevelopment plan).

Click on the graphic for a larger version



A quick explanation of the photo:

• The I-880 5th Avenue Overpass is highlighted in blue because it's going to be rebuilt. Nearby land is being cleared away to accommodate the construction equipment and vehicles to be used. The freeway will be widened 40 feet to include carpool lanes, revamp local interchanges (which are considered dangerous), and seismically retrofit the span. Caltrans District 4 doesn't yet have a project page up, but one should be expected soon. The project is slated for completion in 2008.
• Clinton Basin is also known as Seabreeze Marina, and is in poor shape.
  
• The only direct pedestrian links to the site are on The Embarcadero from the west and 5th Avenue from the north. Measure DD funds will allow for trails to be completed from the existing developed channel to the Estuary Park and the mouth of the channel. The areas colored brown and orange are parcels of land that will be needed for this work. They will be needed for the overpass project as well.
• There is no current AC Transit bus service or other public transportation to this site.
• The BART route is highlighted in red, with the Lake Merritt BART Station in darker red. BART becomes a subway as it heads west just before 5th Avenue. It then tunnels underneath the Laney College Athletic Fields, Lake Merritt Channel, and the Laney College main buildings.
  
• Walking distance from the Lake Merritt BART Station to the site is about 0.8 miles.
• Jack London Square is 0.5-1.0 miles west of the site.
  
• A walk from the Coliseum BART station to Gate D at the McAfee Coliseum is 1/4 mile; to Gate A it's 1/8 mile.
  
• A walk from the 19th Street Station to the Uptown site is only 1/10 mile, from the 12th Street Station it's about 1/2 mile.
  
• The distance from San Jose's San Pedro Square to the HP Pavilion is also 1/2 mile.
• A ride on SF Muni's N-Judah from the Embarcadero Station to SBC Park (2nd & King) is 1.4 miles.
  

Because of the numerous diverse interests that have stakes in the Oak-to-9th development, it would be foolish to predict what will happen. However, I decided to try a hypothetical ballpark drawing to see how small a ballpark could be built on the site. The result looks like this:



Positives:

• It doesn't encroach upon the Silveira property
  
• It leaves the 9th Ave Terminal side to Signature
• The orientation of the field allows for a sweeping, panoramic view of Oakland's downtown, hills and Lake Merritt (from the upper deck).

Negatives:

• The ballpark's footprint (10-11 acres) eats into available open space, and some minimum of open space must be made available for the public. The original Estuary Policy Plan calls for a meadow to be created where the ballpark sits.
  
• Height will be over 100 feet at some points and may block views of the bay.

Much more to come.

De La Fuente says, "Build at the Estuary"

Glenn Dickey reports that Oakland City Council president Ignacio De La Fuente has proposed the Estuary site to Lewis Wolff as the place to build a ballpark now that the Coliseum is not being heavily considered. The Estuary has been profiled in depth over the past few months. Check out the following links for more information:

• Ballpark concepts continued... - contains quotes from the lead developer at the Estuary
• A sample Estuary development plan - includes an overhead photo and an assessment of the site with pros and cons
• Photo Overview (PDF, requires Acrobat Reader) - for those interested in what the site currently looks like
  
• Signature Properties corporate website
• The Port of Oakland's Estuary Plan (PDF) - keep in mind, it hasn't been revised in years
  

I would encourage anyone who may be nearby or passing through Oakland and has time to do so to head out to the Estuary and walk around for a bit. It might stimulate your imagination. The Estuary site, also known as "Oak-to-Ninth", can be reached directly from I-880.

Directions from:

• I-880 South, take the Embarcadero exit, make a right on the Embarcadero, which is at this point a frontage road. Drive back towards Jack London Square 1/2 mile, and it's on your left.
  
• I-880 North, take the 5th Ave/Embarcadero exit, which will wind underneath the freeway, intersecting with the Embarcadero. Parking should be available on the other side of the street.
• Downtown Oakland, take Oak St south (towards Jack London Square) and past I-880. Oak will end and merge with the Embarcadero (left or East). Proceed along the Embarcadero past the Aquatic Center for 1/2 mile. The site will be on your right.
  

If these directions are confusing, I apologize. Look up the address "1000 Embarcadero" or "1000 Embarcadero E" in Mapquest, Google maps, or your favorite address finder.

Uptown update: Forest City moving forward

An article from Tuesday's Oakland Tribune summarizes the overall development scene in the Uptown area, which includes the Forest City development among others:

The Oakland Planning Commission voted 6-1 on Wednesday to approve Forest City's design and landscape plans for 665 apartments in a series of five-story buildings, 9,000 square feet of commercial space, 533 parking spaces and a new public park, all spread over three parcels between 19th Street, Thomas L. Berkley Way, Telegraph Avenue and SanPablo Avenue.

Sadly, the actual number of apartments being built by Forest City seems to go down with every new announcement, but it's better than nothing I suppose. It would appear that the only thing that could seriously delay the project now would be the eviction and eminent domain proceedings that are left to take place for current tenants. Once that's out of the way, groundbreaking should occur soon thereafter. That would shut the door for good on a stadium idea, which still burns brightly for many A's fans but hasn't seriously been considered by the City of Oakland for some time now.

Neil Hayes' call for ideas, and my own

Neil Hayes' new column posits the idea of an East Bay ballpark serving as a place that serves the community and salutes the East Bay's unique history. Since it appears that an Oakland location is no given, it makes sense to go this route. I especially liked the mention of the almost mythical Neptune Beach, which was once Alameda's bayside response to SF's Sutro Baths or the Santa Cruz Boardwalk.

There are ways for a ballpark to accomplish these objectives while maximizing revenue streams. The best way is to limit the size of a ballpark. I just finished a conceptual drawing of a 38,000-seat ballpark that fits on only 10 acres. It's not really site-specific, so it should fit on a roughly square or rectangular lot. Features include:

1. 53 midlevel suites, 10 dugout suites, and 3 party suites
   
2. 3,320 club seats on two levels, mezzanine club level restaurant with field view
   
3. A simplified design that reduces costs by limiting ballpark's footprint
   
4. Outfield bleachers on two decks similar to old Comiskey Park and Tiger Stadium
5. Restaurant/bar in left field that seats 200+
6. Picnic seating in right field
7. Field set 23 feet below street level, main concourse on street level
8. Children's play area that could be placed in outfield (upper or lower) or near main gate
   
9. Pitcher-friendly dimensions with fences that could be moved in
10. Next-generation grass technology that allows for easy conversion for non-baseball events such as concerts and soccer/football games
11. Flexible seating plan that allows for up to 1,000 extra temporary seats to be installed for high-demand or playoff games
12. A grass berm in left-center for general admission patrons
13. At least 1.5% of seats are ADA-compliant
14. Dramatic entrances in centerfield and home plate that contain monuments and a museum devoted to A's history

For a messy conglomerate view of this concept, click here to download a graphic. Over the next few days, I'll put out other level-by-level drawings that detail all of the ballpark's features. One thing I could certainly use is some advice or help on doing artist concept-type drawings. This is not my strong suit, so any assistance would be much appreciated.

Ray Ratto column

The inimitable Ratto puts the A's and 49ers in a little game called "Survivor: Stadium Edition" which plays out less like the reality TV show and more like a rigged game of Monopoly. Whether you find humor in his column or not, the message is very clear: Getting a new venue for either team is not going to be easy, quick, or cheap. In the end, he still says to bet on the A's, despite the obstacles.

Uptown's price tag rising

From the this isn't exactly a big surprise department: the Oakland Tribune is reporting that new costs may force the city of Oakland to fork over additional subsidies to the Forest City Uptown housing development. Among the rising costs: escalating values of land to be acquired, and cleanup costs for a site that used to house a Chevron station. A Sears Tire and Auto Center also needs to be relocated, which may force Oakland CEDA (Redevelopment) to pay for additional land on which the relocated garage would be placed. The cleanup effort would cost the city $4 million, and the cost to relocate the garage could be as much as $12.5 million. That pushes the total cost of subsidies and ancillary costs to nearly $80 million, or about $80,000 per apartment.

Rising costs are common in projects of this magnitude. It is possible, though not likely, that the subsidies will run high enough to push the Oakland City Council and Mayor Jerry Brown to dump the project. Virtually every important politician in Oakland supports the Uptown project, and it would take some major revelations and negative political sentiment to turn the tide against it.

But what if it did? It could make the land available for a ballpark, since Oakland has already used eminent domain to acquire the majority of the individual properties, allowing them to sink the costs to an extent - though the public may demand the team pay for the land to reimburse the city. Previous property owners who were forced to sell because of eminent domain may have the potential to sue because the city would be using the land for a different purpose than originally intended. The cleanup costs mentioned in the article would still need to be covered, and it would be unclear who would foot the bill. Then there would be the political problem - no one associated with the city outside of Larry Reid has publicly supported spending taxpayer money for a ballpark. Proponents including the A's would probably have to wait until Brown left office and hope that a more friendly face, such as Ignacio de la Fuente, won the next mayoral election. Then the political machine would have to get in gear to line up other support, from the City Administrator Debroah Edgerly to State Senator Don Perata. Why? Because no matter how much many fans would like a privately-funded endeavor, it's much more likely that some public component will be required, whether it's 75% in the Minnesota Twins deal, 33% in the St. Louis Cardinals' new Busch Stadium, or 5% in the Pac Bell Park deal.

Giants, A's cable ratings down

From Steve Kroner's Chronicle article:

Ratings for Giants telecasts on Fox Sports Net Bay Area and KTVU (Channel 2) and for A's telecasts on FSNBA and KICU (Channel 36) are down approximately one-third from a similar point in 2004.

The Giants are averaging a 3.0 rating on FSNBA, the A's 1.5. While 3.0 is great for a sports broadcast, things would be much better with Barry Bonds around. As for the A's, they are suffering from a severe case of bandwagonism, with few signs of an end to the malaise in sight. Expect the trend to continue until either team goes on a significant tear.

Startup to timeshare luxury suites

A novel concept to the marketing of luxury suites was launched today by a startup called Owner's Pass. John Arledge and Peter Cochran created the Los Gatos-based firm, which will sell timeshare packages of luxury suites. The packages not only bring down the often prohibitively high cost of suites ($100,000 per year or more), but they'll also offer the opportunity to use a single fee to cover multiple sports. More details are available in an Oakland Tribune article.

When I first saw the article, I thought, "Why hasn't anyone done this before?" Then it occurred to me that the major pro sports franchises are often in competition with one another and do their best to lock their customers into annual or even multiyear deals. Sometimes it even appears that the market is oversaturated. As for the startup, buying leases for the 6 major franchises here in order to timeshare them can cost upwards of $500,000 a year, a risky capital cost for a business whose customer base has potential, but is yet unproven. Still, there are many firms who have a hard time justifying annual leases on suites, and this could very well open up the market significantly for them as well as smaller companies. If the Owner's Pass business model works, they will expand to other markets, and they may become a cornerstone of a huge secondary suite sales market. Good luck to them.

Ballpark concepts continued...

Fleshing out last night's news a little more is an article from today's Oakland Tribune. Along with talk of design and the architectural players involved, is more information about potential sites: the Estuary site and the now shutdown Oakland Army Base. At some point I'll try to take pictures of the base and the surrounding area. In the meantime, here's a snippet from the article including quotes from Michael Ghielmetti (the president of Signature Properties who met with Wolff over a month ago), regarding the Estuary site and Oakland in general:

Oak-to-Ninth has been discussed as a possible site because of its waterfront location. And Wolff met with Michael Ghielmetti, president of Signature Properties, the firm that owns Oak-to-Ninth.

"Oak-to-Ninth has challenges because it is not very close to transit, and the access to and from the site is very difficult, but I am not going to be the one that says absolutely not," Ghielmetti said Wednesday. "When we met with Lew and his son, we were talking in broad concepts about a variety of locations in Oakland and reasons to stay in Oakland."

Signature has a unique perspective because they've done or are completing 5 separate housing developments in Oakland of varying sizes. Since they were picked to develop the Estuary site, it isn't clear whether they are more interested in building their housing plan (which still has yet to be fully approved) or sharing the site with the A's (which hasn't formally been brought up as an option yet). The key may be Oakland city mandates regarding affordable housing. Debate surrounding minimum amounts of low-income housing are stalling the Uptown deal, and it looks like they might stall Signature's plans as well. For more on the Estuary including a mockup, check out my mockup plan and photo overview.

Wolff gives some details

The important stuff from John Shea's Chronicle article:

The owner has formed a venue development committee involving two team executives -- President Mike Crowley and Wolff's son, Keith -- and three outside firms, including 360 Architects, Gensler Architects and International Facilities Group.

Committee members have toured several newer ballparks, plus Boston's Fenway Park, and plan to check out other pro sports facilities, including basketball arenas. The mission is to gather information to be better prepared to design a new home, if it gets that far.

"They'll come up with a prototype, and they're thinking outside the box," Wolff said. "With venues, you want the next new one to be better than the last new one."

Wolff isn't as interested in building a park on the Coliseum parking lot and said a downtown site is "probably not in the cards," but he did say he's more open than ever to locations in and around Oakland, preferably with BART access. Public help, he added, is necessary.

Let's pick apart the statements made here.

• Touring existing facilities comes with the territory. Part of the process is evaluating the designs and architects associated with them, and crib some of the best ideas. Fenway is an unusual example of a refurbishment that is ongoing.
• Looking at basketball arenas is a good move. Philips Arena has a unique design with the suites stacked on one side of the building and the seating bowl cantilevered around them, making for better, lower sight lines. 360 designed Miami's American Airlines Arena, which is notable for a special innovation: floor suites. Jacobs Field in Cleveland has a version of this in their Dugout Suites, covered front-row seats between the dugouts at the same elevation as the dugouts. Behind the seating area are the individual suites, below the lower seating bowl. This type of seating would most certainly demand a premium.
  
• Gensler has a wide ranging portfolio, but little sports venue experience. My guess is that they'll work on concourses, public spaces, and fan-oriented areas. In an effort to escape the drab gray that dominates the Coliseum, a new ballpark would be bright and full of color.
• "With venues, you want the next new one to be better than the last new one." - The standard-bearer currently is Petco Park, though it's likely that the new DC and Minneapolis ballparks will be completed in the next 3+ years. Better also often means more expensive, which could drive up the price of the project. I can see Wolff trying to limit the amount of concrete that's poured, while maximizing revenue within the space as much as possible.
• The Coliseum's out based on the power lines issue and conflicts with the Raiders and Warriors. It may also be because he saw the limited development potential and balked, thinking the cost wasn't worth the return. Saying Downtown is not in the cards really means the Uptown site is not feasible. That's probably because it's too far along the development timeline to scrap it.
  
• What does that leave? The Estuary site for starters. Then perhaps the OUSD and Laney College sites. All 3 have been profiled here, and all 3 have development issues to overcome. The Kaiser Convention Center just closed down so it may become available, but the site's too small to house a ballpark unless other land is acquired. Howard Terminal is locked into a long-term lease agreement.
• The old Army Base in west Oakland is a possibility, but it would require a new BART station, site cleanup, and a buyer for the required property. Based on the activity that occured after the closures of Treasure Island, Alameda NAS, and the Presidio, it's not the most expeditious process.
• There are also sites that may be available that are currently active or in use, such as some of the light industrial area that lines I-880 between Downtown and Jack London Square. Acquisition costs for such properties would be the big issue there.
  
• I don't know what to make of the "public help is necessary" comment. I'll ask the reporter myself about that.
  

Oakland City Council Seat 2 Election Results

From the Oakland Tribune: Preliminary results indicate that Pat Kernighan won tonight's special election for the Grand Lake-Chinatown City Council seat. Though it's projected she will not receive more than 30% of the vote, there will not be a runoff, and Kernighan will be declared the winner. She was previously chief of staff for Danny Wan, who vacated the seat in January.

Kernighan will have some sway over the fate of the Oak-to-9th Estuary site, profiled here previously. While it isn't likely the property will be the home of a ballpark, it remains a viable option, should all interested properties come to an agreement.

Kernighan has commenteed publicly on development of the Uptown site for a ballpark. This is her statement, first published on the Greater Grand Lake Coalition website:

I am encouraged that Lewis Wolff has the potential wherewithal to finance a new baseball stadium without need of public money. A new A’s ballpark would make a lot of Oaklanders happy, but I am adamantly opposed to spending public dollars to build one when there are so many other unfunded public needs of much higher priority.

She hasn't publicly commented on Oak-to-9th's possible use as a ballpark site.

A harbinger in Florida, sort of

Since Florida's Senate legislators last week refused to take up the Marlins $60 million funding bill, the ballpark near the Orange Bowl is officially in limbo. In the few days since, that $60 million estimate ($30 million in today's dollars) has jumped 50% due to revised estimates for acquiring needed land near the Orange Bowl, which would have certainly caused much consternation on both sides of the divide.

Now MLB has let the other shoe drop. A letter from MLB President Bob DuPuy to Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria as well as the mayors of the City of Miami and Miami/Dade County gives the three until June 9 to "come up with a full financing plan by June 9 to ensure the Marlins move off the list of teams that receive millions in revenue sharing earmarked for financially strapped teams."

Why June 9, a seemingly arbitrary date? The legislative session for the year is over regarding the budget, so Governor Jeb Bush would have to call a special session to get a new bill debated, and since Bush has been steadfastly straddling the fence on this issue, it seems unlikely that it will be taken up anytime soon. MLB wants to push this forward so that if it fails, they can pull out the big guns and talk relocation, which may force one or more of the parties to commit the remaining money (preferably, not Loria or MLB).

Back to the revenue sharing argument. The Marlins, by virtue of less favorable rental agreements than other MLB franchises coupled with a lackluster baseball facility in Dolphins Stadium, reap in millions every year from revenue sharing. MLB's biggest motivation is to get the "welfare teams" (Florida, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Kansas City, Oakland) who happen to also be playing in older or not ideal facilities off the dole via new stadium deals. The Marlins, Twins, and A's are in similar positions because of their revenue sharing intake, as well as their on-field success, which has probably made several other owners jealous ("Why should I finance ____'s wins, not just my own?").

No details have emerged regarding the A's plans yet, and for good reason - the better to not have any debate it. It is highly likely that the A's path will follow the Twins, Marlins, and Nats closely - don't reveal too many details, keep it out of the voting booth as long as possible. Since the A's won't have to worry about getting help from the Guvernator, any debate would be confined to localities, namely Oakland/Alameda County. That would mean that plans could be debated and approved/rejected much more quickly than if they went through some complex State scenario, but it also means that local opposition groups would wield much more say in the process. Unless the plan involves a Pac Bell Park-type financing structure, I doubt anything will go through on the first try. Shortly thereafter, the locals should expect a nice little letter from Bob DuPuy. That's when the ball will truly be in play.

Attendance Watch 5/13

The two upcoming series with the Yankees and Red Sox will be important because the six games will bring at least 1/10th of the season's total attendance through the Coliseum's turnstiles. The A's will have two other large-grossing series, June 24-26 vs. the Giants and September 2-4 vs. the Yankees. If the A's are in contention through August, they should be able to hit the 2.1 million figure at the very least. If not, they could drop below 2 million easily. Last season's 2.2 million is slightly off from 2003, and that small (1%) drop can be attributed to the A's losing the division on the 2nd-to-last game of the season.

Currently through 15 dates, the A's total is 309,117, with an average of 20,608 per date. That's down almost 108,000 from 2004, but through 15 dates in 2004, the A's had already played 3 games with the Yanks. This season's drop can be largely blamed on the poor weather seen so far this spring.

It'll be interesting to see how much the agressive season ticket marketing campaign has affected season tickets sales. This was considered Lew Wolff's #1 goal prior to getting a stadium deal in place. Even if the team drops in attendance due to poor performance, an expanded season ticket roll will be a very encouraging sign for the ownership group and peripheral investors as well.

Incidentally, the Giants' current total attendance is 758,618 through 20 dates, with an average of 37,931 per date. Not quite a sellout every game, but they're still on track to 3 million.

Coliseum Amtrak station to open 5/25

The grand opening for the Oakland Coliseum Intercity Rail Station just outside the stadium will be May 25, according to the East Bay Business Times. Yes, it will be more expensive than BART, but there is at least one nice thing to it: some of the trains have WiFi and Amtrak expects to roll it out further over time.

Three more Photo Overviews, and other notes

This time, as promised, I present the photo overviews for:

• Laney College Athletic Fields - Not feasible nor under consideration due to Peralta Community College District's desired land uses.
• Howard Terminal - Unlikely because of long-term lease with major shipping company Matson.
• Uptown - Small sliver of hope for a ballpark that requires much political work done over the last three years to be undone, and new political support to be lined up behind it.

Other notes:

• The East Bay Business Times put out an editorial in this week's issue that does not support large-scale public financing of a ballpark. It steps back slightly on its position towards the end, urging Oakland and Alameda County political leaders to "weigh the economic benefits of the stadium as an investment."
• On the sidebar to the right, I've added a new feature called The Scorecard. It's there to keep track of how different media outlets (TV, radio, print) and personalities (columnists, talk show hosts) are positioned on the ballpark issue. For now, it will show indicators for two specific public financing questions, though it is likely to expand. If you see, hear, or read anything that can help fill in the Scorecard, please send it in.

NY Times: Impact of a Stadium article

For those that want a non-propagandistic view of the economic impact of sports venues, take a look at Robin Pogrebin's May 7th article from the Arts & Design section of the NY Times. Several individuals from both sides of the divide were interviewed, including Jay Cross, who headed the Air Canada Centre and American Airlines Arena projects. He is currently working on the mammoth Jets stadium project on the West Side of Manhattan. Some interesting (and relatively refreshing) quotes from Cross:

Cross... cautioned that a stadium could not shoulder the entire burden of reviving a neighborhood. "One building can't do it on its own," he said.

-and-

The stadium's impact, he added, would take time to determine.

"You've got to give it 20 years," he said. "You've got to be patient. They can help neighborhoods," he said of stadiums, "but they're not instant panaceas. They will neither repel housing or attract it. There still needs to be a bona fide reason to build housing or commercial space as part of a well-thought-through package, because it's largely market driven."

"Times Square had all the good will to clean it up," he continued. "But it needed developers to make commitments."

Keep in mind that the Jets stadium is a multi-use facility which will also function as an extension of the Javits Convention Center, as well as a centerpiece should New York win the 2012 Olympics. Without those, the stadium would have only 8-10 automatically scheduled dates per year in the form of football games. A ballpark would schedule over 10 times that number - 81 games or more. However, even that expanded schedule has holes: 3 months of games spread out over a 6 month span, and what happens during the offseason? Without some guarantee of traffic during that down period in the fall and winter, developers will be hesitant to make commitments.

Diridon Site Acquisition Illegal?

Courtesy CBS-5 (KPIX)/Bay City News Wire:

Today's news tidbit comes from a recently constructed watchdog group from San José called Ballpark Tax Watchdogs. The group filed a rebuttal to San José City Attorney Richard Doyle's April 22 memorandum, which advised the city and the Redevelopment Agency on how it could proceed to acquire the individual parcels that make up the Diridon South site. The controversy revolves around whether or not the purchase of the Diridon South lots and related expenditures, when used for the eventual construction of a sports facility, requires a referendum.

Doyle's opinion is that the purchase of the land and related costs such as feasibility studies are not subject to a vote. Only actual construction costs, when financed by public means (bonds/taxes), are subject to a vote.

BTW believes that any costs, including site acquisition and exploratory expenditures, do require a referendum.

Who's right? Take a look at San Jose's Municipal Code Section 4.95.010:

4.95.010 Prohibition of the use of tax dollars to build a sports facility

The city of San José may participate in the building of a sports facility using tax dollars only after obtaining a majority vote of the voters of the city of San José approving such expenditure.

A “sports facility” for the purpose of this chapter is to be any structure designed to seat more than five thousand people at any one time for the purpose of viewing a sporting or recreational event.

“Tax dollars” for the purposes of this chapter include, without limitation, any commitment to fund wholly or in part said facility with general fund monies, redevelopment fund monies, bonds, loans, special assessments or any other indebtedness guaranteed by city property, taxing authority or revenues.

Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the city from allowing the construction of a sports facility funded by private investment.

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this chapter and application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Where one stands on this issue is largely dependent on how one views sports facilities projects and similar redevelopment work in general. In the end, it appears that this ordinance, enacted in 1988, may have been specifically worded (notice the use of the word "building") to allow for planning-related work to occur. The real question here is, "Will the ballpark opponents take this to the next level?" That level, of course, is court. The last line of BTW's home page indicates this threat is possible. Whether or not they follow through on it remains to be seen.

Note: The BTW domain was registered only 2 days ago (5/2), and the rebuttal was submitted on 4/30.

East Bay Business Times article

Eric Lai wrote a good summary of the development climate in Oakland with regard to the ballpark situation. He contacted me last week, and while I didn't get back to him in time to be quoted, I did respond in time to give the paper permission to use my Coliseum South mockup on the front page. He interviewed Zennie Abraham of Sports Business Simulations, who is the first person I've seen actually discuss the use of redevelopment money (tax increment funds) to finance a ballpark at some length. That's important, because I think there's a misconception that an A's ballpark will be financed the same way that SBC Park was. The chances of that happening are not good. It's best to get the public educated as early as possible about the financial ramifications and costs. Proponents should start early to educate voters on how such a deal would be different from the Raiders' deal, and that kind of outreach could make a difference. At the same time, I will scrutinize such a deal myself to see if it is truly fair for the public. No polls have been taken of the populace, but I would speculate if one were taken now, poll results would be similar to those in the Twin Cities, where the majority of the public is currently against public financing of a ballpark. It would then fall on ballpark proponents to turn that number around in time for a June/November 2006 election.

New Site Photo Overviews

Just completed - three new site photo overviews. The finished overviews are:

1. OUSD (Oakland Unified School District) - This site was mentioned in Peggy Stinnett's column in the Oakland Tribune. She offers her take on a visit by Naoko Ezawa, who helped design Pac Bell (SBC) Park and represented developer KUD. KUD may very well be the Santa Monica firm hired by Lewis Wolff to visit and assess Oakland sites. Based on KUD's portfolio, much of their experience is in developing waterfront properties. I visited the OUSD site several weeks ago, and while it has positives (mass transit, location), there are definitely issues in its shape, size, and the lack of parking (you can see this from the aerial photo in the file). The lot is shaped like an inverted "J", and unless other surrounding blocks are acquired to round it out, it can't properly accommodate a ballpark's footprint. Also, putting it in a decidedly residential neighborhood may turn a ballpark there into Wrigley Jr.
   
2. Coliseum B-C Lot - This may or may not be the main option for building a ballpark. It's the least sexy option because it's the most difficult to foster other surrounding development, but it's also probably the cheapest to build because of zero land acquisition costs.
   
3. Diridon South - The main San Jose site is just a block from the train station and two blocks from the HP Pavilion. San Jose's Redevelopment Agency has been given the green light to acquire the site. Funds are a bit tight but it is expected that money to buy the site will come from the sale of other properties. There exists an issue with the PG&E substation on the west side of the site which probably won't be easily overcome or circumvented.
   

Next up: the Laney College Athletic Fields, and the Uptown and Howard Terminal sites.

Note to Lew: Buy a radio station

A small bit of news that flew under the radar last weekend was the announcement that Susquehanna, the parent company of KNBR (680 and 1050 AM), is putting their radio business up for sale. In the salad days of the late 90's KNBR and KTCT (1050, which later became co-branded as KNBR) were cash cows for Susquehanna. Lately they've become more of a liability to the parent company, as the 49ers' and Raiders' fortunes suffered, pulling away listeners and ratings. Susquehanna, based in York, PA, also owns the venerable KFOG and KSAN-The Bone rock stations in the Bay Area, and 20 more stations in 7 other markets.

It is unclear whether the stations will be sold as a group or as individual entities. Some, like KNBR-680, are the crown jewels and will fetch a pretty high price. 680 is one a handful of clear channel (not the company) stations throughout the country whose signal can be heard at night for hundreds of miles, in states as far as Utah and up and down the Pacific Coast. KNBR has had difficulty finding a good programming mix over the last few years for its lesser property (1050), sometimes going with edgier personalities such as Jim Rome and "J.T. The Brick." On the other hand, it would also simulcast some of its other shows, such as "The Razor and Mr. T." The morning drive-time slot has also been somewhat tricky, especially when KNBR brought a decidedly "morning-show" vibe to 680 in the "Not Just Sports Show," which was killed only last fall. The Raiders had been on 1050 for several years, but were not renewed last season and subsequently moved to KSFO-560. Most recently, KNBR announced a four-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, who had seemingly been on KGO-810 forever, but were let go after KGO saw a ratings slide.

If 680 and 1050 were sold together, the buyer would be given a virtual monopoly on sportstalk radio in the Bay Area, but would also be saddled with having to program for two 50,000-watt stations, which can be expensive. Signing the 49ers when they did probably helped boost the asking price of KNBR, but it remains unclear how the sale would be handled. KNBR already has Giants baseball exclusively on 680 and Warriors basketball (which switches between the two stations). It's not unprecedented for a single station to carry three different teams, but that means that schedule conflicts could become a common occurrence.

This gives Lewis Wolff a potentially huge opportunity. As mentioned previously, the A's will be off KFRC-610 at the end of the 2005 season and their next radio home has not yet been determined. If Wolff were to buy KTCT-1050, he'd have a built-in sportstalk audience on a 50,000-watt station, along with immediate programming in the A's, who currently are relegated to vagabond replacement player status in local radio. Not only would the A's get more immediate exposure; they would also be able to do many of the same revenue-hiding tricks that only the big boys are able to get away with.

That's not to say that acquiring a station will be easy. Once any station goes on sale, literally hundreds of suitors line up for a shot. Existing behemoths such as Clear Channel (yes the company) and CBS/Infinity/Viacom have tons of cash to throw at any acquisitions. An open auction process could drive the price up for either or both stations. KNBR also has a 2% minority stake in the Giants, which further complicates things. Breaking the two stations apart and allowing them to compete would be good for the listening public and potentially reduce any conflict-of-interest issues. Buying KTCT would cost the Wolff/Fisher group millions of dollars, but it would guarantee the A's a stable home on local radio for years, if not decades to come. That can't help but raise the value of the franchise.

Comcast to O's & Nats: "Not so fast my friend"

You probably know by now some details about MLB's payoff to Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos over the Expos' move to DC. MLB allowed the O's to set up a new regional sports network (RSN) called Mid-Atlantic Sports Network. MASN is to be run by the O's, with Angelos having complete control over broadcasts of most O's and Nats home games. MLB has a stake in the venture that will grow annually, but the stake is capped at 33%. The Nats get a "market share" price for the rights to broadcast such games; estimates had the amount at $25 million.

That all sounds well and good for baseball (unless you're a Nats owner who wants a little more control over the situation), but it appears that baseball forgot to consult with a company that's normally a big player in such deals: Comcast. Comcast is the dominant cable operator in much of the country, and it considers the mid-Atlantic area its backyard (it's headquartered in Philadelphia). Comcast also runs regional sports networks throughout this area, and its position as both network (Comcast Sports Net) and distributor (Comcast Cable) gives it some unique power.

What happens when you don't consult Comcast on these things? It's America, so Comcast sued MLB, the O's, and MASN. In the meantime, Comcast is refusing to show Nats games that would normally appear on cable (those home games again). This hardball tactic has worked before when negotiating per-user fees for carrying the RSN, or even carrying it in the first place. The cable provider holds most of the cards in these battles, and they can wage the PR battle that normally hits the teams harder than the cable provider.

Comcast isn't happy about not being able to bid on the rights to carry the Nats. Since MASN is an O's venture, the O's would leave CSN once their contract was up in 2006, leaving CSN in the lurch. If it sounds familiar, you don't need to go far to find similar examples.

Comcast can go a number of ways with this. They could win the suit and have open bidding for the Nats. They could ask for a piece of MASN. They could also choose not to carry MASN at all, or carry it only on expanded basic cable instead of cheaper basic cable. This may also be simply a ploy to get a favorable deal to carry the RSN. But based on their recent expansion, I'm led to believe that they legitimately wanted a chance to broadcast the Nats. This may end up in the courts for quite a while since there's no obvious middle ground. The losers will be the fans, and the eventual Nats owner as well since broadcast rights fees factor into the Nats' final purchase price.

That's a long-winded rant just to get to how this affects the A's. It comes down to one suggestion for Lewis Wolff: Play nice with Comcast. CSN opened up shop in California last fall when they got the nod to carry Sacramento Kings games. They've positioned themselves as the Central Valley's RSN, and they're poised for a bigger advance throughout California. They are on digital cable throughout the Bay Area (channel 401 if you're interested). They don't have any of the Bay Area's major pro teams yet, but you can be sure that as each team's contracts expire, Comcast will swoop in for the kill. They have the built-in advantage over Fox Sports Net because of that distributor position. It could turn out good for viewers as it may cause a sort of bidding war, and FSN, which has a difficult time carrying 4 teams (Giants, A's, Warriors, Sharks), may step away a bit, allowing for better coverage for all teams. That is, unless you like hunting for FSN+.

Comcast will be the ultimate roadblock for the A's if Wolff were interested in setting up his own RSN. Comcast could use the same tactics they used with YES/Yankees, or even drive an RSN out of business, as they did in Minnesota.

Coliseum South photo overview

I've posted the PDF for the next photo site overview, this time for Coliseum South. For some conjecture on how I think development might go, click here. Next up is the Coliseum Parking Lot overview, though it will have fewer pictures. Enjoy.

Estuary Photo Overview

After the A's unusual 1-0 win over The O.C., I drove out to the Estuary to finish taking pictures of the site. For those that are curious about what the Estuary site is, I've compiled the pictures into a PDF presentation with captions and descriptions. For now, I've refrained from adding much of the information in my previous Estuary posts, but at some point I'll put it into a complete site analysis.

I intend to give all of the likely candidate sites this same treatment. The sites I will cover are:

1. Estuary (Oak-to-9th)
   
2. Oakland Coliseum South (Hegenberger/HomeBase)
   
3. Oakland Coliseum Parking Lot (B & C lot)
4. Oakland Uptown (Telegraph/San Pablo & 18th/20th St)
5. Oakland Howard Terminal (west of Jack London Square)
   
6. San Jose Diridon South
7. San Jose Reed & Graham Plant
   
8. Fremont Warm Springs
9. other sites as they are publicized

Here's the link for the Estuary presentation. You'll need Adobe Acrobat or another PDF viewer to open the file.


Pointers or suggestions are appreciated.

Diridon South update - KRON

KRON-4 profiled the Diridon South site on their 5 p.m. newscast earlier this evening. There is a news story and a video clip on that same page.

Important in the story is the following:

But the head of the redevelopment agency says that's simply not true because the money to purchase the 14-acre site is coming from the sale of several properties already owned by the city.

"In the last year, we have spent $20 million on neighborhoods, Mavrogenes said. "We have another $34 million this year and another $20 million next year, so this will not affect that at all."

I'm somewhat skeptical of this, but I suppose it's possible.

San Jose pursues ballpark site, other neighborhoods left out in the cold?

Barry Witt of the Merc writes that on Tuesday, San Jose mayor Ron Gonzales and the City Council held a closed-door session to approve the Redevelopment Agency's pursuit of the 13.9-acre Diridon South site, which has 10 separate property owners. This has leaders in other San Jose neighborhoods worried that funds used to purchase the properties, valued at $20-40 million, will be diverted from their projects.

Where does this money come from, you ask? SJRA has a large pool of money available to them tax increment funds, loans, and other sources. Most of this is reserved for other projects, but there's always some unreserved portion remaining. The unreserved portion usually gets allocated as well, but sometimes it's left to accrue interest.

The kicker is that analysts projected a $25 million operating surplus for SJRA in its five-year plan (2004-05 to 2008-09). A proposal had that surplus go into a Priority Future Projects list, on which such projects could be acted upon in the first two years of a revised budget, but it could just as easily be used for a ballpark site, since SJRA doesn't require any major discussions or hearings to change how unreserved funds are spent.

The mayor and city council argue that SJRA's budget will be big enough to handle all consituents' concerns, but if the price tag on Diridon South escalates to near the $40 million mark, SJRA might have a tough time figuring out where the rest of the money comes from. It's not expected that any funds would be diverted or extra loans taken out to secure the site, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

The other question to ask is "Why doesn't SJRA send this money back into the general fund to offset the budget shortfall?" A good question that has a very simple answer - they don't have to.

Brief comment about attendance

I didn't attend the night-after-Opening Night game for the first time in 4 years to attend the BART hearing. I listened to the game on the radio on the way home, but I didn't get an idea of how sparse the crowd was until I caught the rest of game later on TV. For those that don't know, here's the attendance of Tuesday night's game:

10,106

I realize that it was chilly, and many spent some good money on Opening Night, but that's still rather pathetic. The Brewers had a similar dropoff from Monday to Tuesday, and they're in a brand new, albeit lacking, stadium. The argument about attendance is not so much about seasonal attendance, it's about the wild fluctuations from game to game and the anemic revenue streams derived from the gate. Wednesday will be the first of many BART Double Play Wednesdays with $2 tickets and $1 hot dogs. It's a certainty that many stayed home Tuesday night to take advantage of Wednesday's promotion. It's good to have promotions for families and casual fans, but the A's are getting peanuts compared to other teams. And as long as large swaths of seats are shown empty on game telecasts, the media will continue to hammer the point.

What effect Warm Springs?

Why all the fuss about Warm Springs? Well, if you remember the HOK study, Fremont was considered as a potential site. In fact, it came in third behind the Uptown site and the Coliseum site. With the Warm Springs extension slated to come online around 2010, it may become a viable site if an Oakland site can't be worked out. Below is a picture of the area, with the ballpark site area in green:



The large road running down from left to right is I-880.

The Warm Springs Specific Plan (choose #4 for the Existing Conditions report) involves all manner of different development uses. The land right now is vacant, and is owned by many different parties, including GM, as part of the property is within the NUMMI plant. There is only a brief mention of a ballpark with no details.

A ballpark could be built here if the land was successfullly acquired for the ballpark effort. MLB has said that a Fremont site wouldn't violate the Giants' territorial rights because Warm Springs is just north of the Alameda-Santa Clara County border. It's plenty spacious and there would probably be few homeowner NIMBY issues because there aren't any homeowners there.

That's not to say it's without downsides. History of recent ballpark construction indicates that suburban sites are less successful in spurring development than urban sites. Because of the Bay Area's never relenting real estate market, it's not likely that a ballpark would become a white elephant, but it would still be difficult to convince voters of a ballpark's economic benefits over a bunch of housing or retail on the site, especially if much of it is taken up by parking as is shown in the HOK study. There's also the issue of traffic leading to the ballpark. If the intention is to get more Santa Clara County fans, the net effect would be 3,000 extra cars clogging up one of the Bay Area's most congested interchanges just south of the site, I-880 & Hwy 237. Extending BART all the way south to Milpitas and San Jose would help, but getting that built is another story. Lastly, if any money was required of Fremont, it would be difficult to come by, since they're making some serious cuts including the highly controversial "burglar alarm" police response cut.

BART to Warm Springs - not a ballpark item

I attended the BART public hearing on the Warm Springs extension earlier tonight. The proceedings were mostly civil, except for when David Schonnbrunn of Transdef, who was the only opponent of the plan. Schonnbrunn criticized the plan for being wasteful and not smart-growth oriented. While I agreed with some of his points, I felt that I had to speak up to defend the plan, even though I was only there to observe and had no intention to speak.

My comments had to do with the fact that I live in San Jose and work in Fremont. This makes for a usually stress-free reverse commute, but during afternoons it isn't always pleasant. I would take public transit regularly to work, but public transit takes as many as 3 different transfers to get from door to door. Add to that some thoroughfares that are not bike-friendly, and it makes for a serious deterrent to going green. One of my quotes, which was played on the KTVU's 10 PM newscast, went like this (I'm paraphrasing myself):

I work in the Warm Springs area. The place is woefully underserved, and to make things worse, it's difficult to transfer from Santa Clara County's VTA to AC Transit (Alameda County). I would say that at least 1/4 of the workforce at my employer comes from Santa Clara County, and many of them would seriously consider using transit if it were easier. If I could take a single bus from downtown San Jose to Warm Springs, I could bike the rest of the way and abandon my car at home everyday. In fact, if the extension were already in place, I would already be doing this. The best part is that I would be encouraged to use BART more, but even if I didn't, the indirect benefit would be positive because it would motivate AC and VTA to better synchronize their service offerings. (AC runs many hub-based routes from BART stations, whereas VTA runs more point-to-point routes.)

I didn't stick around to see how much my comments resonated or to get interviewed by KTVU reporter Diane Guerazzi, but they did have enough affect that I caught a few smiles from the BART officials out of the corner of my eye, and there's the newsclip to boot. Even if BART doesn't come to San Jose as soon as Ron Gonzales wants it (or even never), the Warm Springs extension will help Valley travelers much just because it's closer. Having potentially one less transfer to make is a very big deal to public transit users.

My next post will cover the effect the Warm Springs extension could have on a new ballpark. The extension is due for a final decision in June.

News items galore

The AP article titled A's President Says Team May Build Own Stadium is a little misleading because the title could be easily misinterpreted. Take a look at the quote from A's President Michael Crowley:

"We're going to look at ourselves, take a look at the options, take a look at what can be done. And when we come up with something we feel comfortable with, then we'll talk to the city at that time."

There's nothing about how much the A's will pay (or conversely, what the city's share is). It's a given that regardless of the types funding sources, as long as the requirements are met, the A's will build it. That's Wolff's forte.

Also, a Merc editorial approves of San Jose's Diridon South site.

Wolff meets with Signature

Gwen Knapp writes about Wolff in her Opening Day column in the Chronicle. Several good nuggets were inside, including:

1. Wolff met with Signature Properties' Jim Ghielmetti on Monday. They may have been discussing Signature's multiple Oakland developments, especially the Estuary plan. (See one of my previous entries for a mock-up.)
2. Wolff stayed at his daughter's place in Los Gatos over the weekend. The daughter, Kari, has been a longtime A's fan. She helped put together a season-ticket package she could sell to friends and acquaintances, to get more of a following in the South Bay. 20 packages have been sold, and half were for full-season plans. Depending on whether you're exclusively an East Bay or South Bay supporter (or neither), you may interpret this differently.

It didn't appear that Knapp had any direct questions about the ballpark, which must have come as a relief to Wolff.

Opening Day notes

I was one of the 44,000-plus announced at the McAfee Coliseum last night. Kirk Sarloos's inability to get left-handed hitters out allowed me to look around and note some of the changes:

1. The improvements made to the Meyer Sound PA system are noticeable. Not that Roy Steele's voice could ever sound tinny or weak, but the enhancements made him sound clearer and boomier than ever.
   
2. The GM Friday night campaign should bring out a few new folks, though I am disappointed that they didn't have a Saturn Sky or Pontiac Solstice roadster up for grabs.
   
3. More signage. I saw a few more advertisers in more locations. The outfield wall is saturated with ads. The two big signs that hung above the stairs in left and right now have a trivision-type display that features A's Brand and Verizon Wireless. I also saw a new sign for E-Loan and a couple more new advertisers. It looks like the team has been more aggressive in the offseason looking for stadium sponsors.
   
4. The centerfield, plaza-level sign showing the names of previous A's greats is gone. There are two new signs on the plaza facade near the foul poles that show the years of the A's world championship teams.
5. The historical video montage shown before games has changed. It now has more contemporary music and ends with a vintage 70's-era Swingin' A's graphic.
6. The team has also produced a cheesy-looking "public service announcement" promoting proper fan behavior, also to be shown before every game.
   

KTVU interview with Lewis Wolff

Wolff was on Mornings on 2 Monday morning, interviewed by Ross McGowan. The archived video can be found here.

Here's a snippet from the interview:

McGowan: Considering that Oakland has no money, is this going to be privately financed?

Wolff: It (public funding) may not be in the traditional way in terms of issuing a bond issue or by guaranteeing seats and things like that, but there will be public participation. Just in the fact of getting entitlements and zoning, so there's value that cities can add without going broke.

I get the feeling that Wolff is going back to his old redevelopment roots, and the A's are the anchor of an ambitious development plan. Public financing for a ballpark without bonding or seat licenses? Pardon me for being skeptical, but I'm having a hard time seeing it. Then again, he may have something up his sleeve. That's why he's a billionaire and I'm just an observer.

Note: A small clip of the interview was shown during the 10 p.m. KTVU newcast as part of business editor Brian Banmiller's featured story. Banmiller also interview Councilman Ignacio de la Fuente, who reiterated his stance that Oakland doesn't have any public money to put up for a ballpark. He must be referring to Wolff's "traditional" methods as well.

More San Jose articles

Undaunted by the collapse of the Del Monte-KB Home deal, the SJ City Council is moving forward on talks to purchase much of the Diridon South site. Diridon South has several advantages over the Del Monte site, including existing parking and transit links and its proximity to downtown San Jose. The biggest issue in acquiring the site is the challenge of acquiring property from multiple landowners. This includes PG&E, which has a substation that may be difficult to relocate.

Below is an aerial photo of the Arena/Diridon area. The Arena is to the north. The Diridon South site where the ballpark would be situated is in green. Red indicates the existing transit links in the Caltrain/Amtrak/ACE station just north of the ballpark, the VTA bus transfer center north of the train station, and the light rail station to the east. The train station is also the site of a proposed BART extension, though it's looking more and more like BART is getting scaled back.



If you're interested in what a ballpark may look like on the Diridon South site, here's a link for a conceptual aerial plan (warning: it's a large file to download - 300 kB).

Disappointingly, the Wave Mag article that promised "the lowdown" on the San Jose plan two weeks ago contains little new or revealing information. The print version also has a bizarre Photoshop-job picture of a mis-sized Shea Stadium (Shea? How about a stadium that isn't a cookie-cutter?) southwest of downtown San Jose, in the suddenly riparian Gardner neighborhood.

Forbes 2005 MLB valuations + KFRC going bye-bye

As they have since 1998, Forbes has just published its yearly franchise values list. Not surprisingly, the Yanks and Red Sox are at the top of the list. An exploratory article accompanies the rankings.

The A's slipped in value $1 million to be worth an estimated $185 million, which is slightly higher than the Wolff/Fisher group's $180 million purchase price. Was this a hometown discount? We may never know.

The A's reportedly received $116 million in revenue in 2004, which when factoring in the $19 million revenue sharing payment they received, is probably correct. With revenue sharing, they pulled in a nearly $6 million profit. Without it, they'd run more than $13 million in the red, though it'd be more likely that they'd slash payroll enough to stay more-or-less in the black. It does make one wonder where the rest of the money goes. Every team claims $40 million or more every year in player development and other non-payroll operations-related costs, but it's not as if the A's draft players that demand huge signing bonuses. They don't have any stadium debt, and rarely do they venture into the expensive non-draftee foreign markets (Japan, Cuba). Perhaps there's a directive from the commish that teams who get large revenue sharing payments cannot extend their payroll as a result. That would make sense, but then what would the owners do with the extra cash? Well, it certainly does not suck to be them.

Then again, they may want to pocket that change, since KFRC will no longer broadcast A's games after this season. That makes one less high-power AM station available, thereby driving down the price of broadcast rights. On a related note, It's about time the A's and KNBR started getting along again. On and off for a few years, KNBR wouldn't broadcast A's highlights on radio because of a competitive situation between KNBR's parent, Susquehanna, and CBS/Infinity, which owned KFRC.

Rick Hurd's Q&A with Lewis Wolff

In the CoCo Times interview, Hurd inquires about Wolff's relationship with Selig:

CCT (Hurd): You mentioned at Friday's press conference that Mr. Selig approached you about buying into the A's. Would you have been as enthusiastic about it were it not for your friendship with him?
Wolff: Well, he helped me get involved because he knew me, and he knew Steve and Ken and what their situation was. What you have to remember is you can't really get involved in baseball unless the commissioner lets you. My friendship with him was not the big issue. The big issue was that with this particular team, the downside risk isn't that huge, but the upside potential is.

CCT: But it seems like without a ballpark solution, this franchise is stuck. Mr. Selig has expressed doubts in the past about whether this is a viable two-team market, and he's made his stance that the Giants own the territorial rights to Santa Clara County clear on numerous occasions. So how do you respond to those who might say your friendship with him and your choice to buy into the A's is a sign the franchise may be headed out of the Bay Area?
Wolff: Well, I've never heard him discuss the market, and the issue I think I made pretty clear at the press conference. We're going to focus on Oakland. We're not going to do what-ifs. If people want to focus on that, fine. There's 30 owners in this league, and I'm sure Bud is closer to a lot of them than he is to me. So I think that's a lot of hogwash really.

Then Hurd went further into the ballpark issue:

CCT: Clearly, finding a ballpark is the franchise's No. 1 issue. You've said you won't give daily updates, but for the record, can you tell us where you are in that process right now, and where you'd like to be a year from now?
Wolff: No. I want to be consistent on that statement, and I just don't think I need to do that. The real estate industry is the one area where I really know how to operate, and I just don't feel that's what I want to do. Otherwise, every real estate broker in the world will be lighting up my phone. I'm not trying to hide anything. It just wouldn't serve any purpose to comment on it at this time. That's not to say we won't have things to say as this process continues.

CCT: The ballpark aside, you talked Friday about "thinking outside the box" with regard to operating this team. What other ways are there to grow revenue given the franchise's current state?
Wolff: We're exploring those things. I'm going to have a series of discussions with (Crowley). We think that there are, but we're not sure. We're only into this three days.

CCT: In 1992, when Peter Magowan headed an ownership group that bought the Giants and kept them in San Francisco, his group faced many of the same problems the A's do now. How similar do you think your current situation is with their old one?
Wolff: I love the ballpark. I think times are different, and a lot of different things have changed since then. But they've been able to prove that a great ballpark in a downtown area does a lot for a community. At the same time, they tried to do it with 100 percent private money. That's very difficult, and I'm not sure you could get anything built today entirely on private money. But I was at that park on Opening Day a few years ago, and it was just wonderful. I think if we were able to do something like that in Oakland, it would have a very high impact.

CCT: What has changed?
Wolff: That's an entire discussion in itself. But the economic and political landscape are always changing.

Wolff's responses are carefully constructed as to not give the appearance of a commitment to any one idea (site, funding sources, timeline). The proposal(s) will come along soon enough. One refreshing thing I can see from Wolff's press conference and interviews is that he doesn't seem to be the type who will negotiate through the media. He's doing his necessary rounds with the media, then he'll go right back into silent mode. The quote confirming the lodge mentality of the commish and owners is unexpected, though not surprising.

Dave Newhouse interviews Lewis Wolff

Small details have emerged. Tidbits from the interview:

Q (Newhouse). Are you encouraged that a ballpark can be built in Oakland?

A (Wolff). I always feel that way, but the biggest issue is pinning down a site, and we're working on that right now.

Q. You mentioned last week that you would be looking at alternative sites: Would that include something along the estuary?

A. First of all, we don't know how many alternatives there are. What we can't do is look at a site we can't use because it might take 10 years to get there. The answer is I'm going to do everything I can to find a site.

Q. The Coliseum parking lot, which you're focused on, offers BART and highway access, but no aesthetic qualities. Would you agree?

A. You haven't seen what we plan to build there yet.

Q. What has been your relationship with Alameda County's Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to date?

A. They have been very supportive, and I would like to thank both the county and the city of Oakland. A lot has gone on since our (Friday) press conference, and they're just terrific. When I call, they've responded right away. I see no problem dealing with them.

Newhouse did his best to pry some steak from Wolff, but all he got was sizzle. That's what makes Wolff the consummate professional he is. He's good.

Q. With the close proximity of sports teams to one another in this country, would "territorial rights" stand up in court?

A. I'll never know because I'll never test it.

It's nice to see that Newhouse didn't lob the typical San Jose or Vegas/Portland question that would've gotten the typical response. Wolff's response, as expected, leaves the territorial rights battle squarely within the San Jose civic and booster groups, making it a real uphill climb for them.

San Jose, DC differences

Maury Brown of SABR's Business of Baseball committee and the Oregon Stadium Campaign wrote a brief op-ed in the Merc about the differences between the DC situation and the Santa Clara County situation. I agree with much of what he says in the piece, including the idea that San Jose proponents may have to go to court to get a remedy. There is one point I disagree with:

The other alternative would be taking MLB to court, in which case he would have solid footing, given San Jose being within Santa Clara County.

The "he" in the quote refers to Giants managing partner Peter Magowan, and the "footing" is a legal claim over the territory. I don't think this is necessarily the case. Brown implies that if it went to court and territorial rights were not to be challenged because of the anti-trust exemption, it would be an open-and-shut case. That would make sense if the A's were suing baseball, but I doubt that's how it's going to happen. If a party outside MLB such as a San Jose civic group were to sue the Giants/MLB over territorial rights (they'd be challenging the exemption), the Giants and MLB might have trouble explaining the following issues:

1. Why three of the pre-existing two-team markets have identical territory sharing agreements, while the Bay Area is an exception, with the territory divided inequitably (4.2 million in 6 counties for the Giants, 2.8 million in 2 counties for the A's).
   
2. Or the judge might ask why television rights are equitably shared, but stadium-building rights are not.
3. What compensation the A's received for the Giants moving closer to the A's when SBC Park was built, to a location that could better serve and attract East Bay fans. If you've ever been on a BART train filled with Giants fans from Concord or an Alameda special ballpark ferry to SBC, you know what I'm talking about. The 'Stick was not a public-transit friendly venue. In fact, I'm surprised Steve Schott never raised a stink about this at all - or maybe he did and we just don't know about it.
4. Then there's the issue regarding how the territorial rights were granted and retained in the first place. Some say they evaporated once the last ballot measure in Santa Clara County failed, Magowan says he bought the Giants based on having those rights. That makes sense now that Santa Clara County is the high-tech capital of the world, but when Magowan bought the Giants, Yahoo! was just a glimmer in two Stanford students eyes, and Google was only a number. The area was in the midst of the recession, and many here were worried about losing defense contractors who were shutting down daily, not thinking about an impending technological boom. Magowan would then argue that he wouldn't have built his privately-funded ballpark without those same rights, but then he'd have to actually show potential damages that would result from a San Jose ballpark. I don't think he really wants to do that, because A) He'd have to open up the books, and that would show how much revenue is being hidden because of the vested interest agreements between the Giants and KNBR and KTVU, B) If Giants fans knew how much was being hidden, it'd create a huge backlash (the cost-controlled $75 million payroll), and C) Bud Selig and MLB have no interest in actually showing anything truthful about how money flows into and throughout the league - in fact, history has shown that MLB has done everything it could to prevent litigation, including foolishly drawing up settlements.
   

The problem with all this legal posturing and wrangling is that it's expensive, and it takes a long time. Would a party that challenged the exemption try to tackle just the anomalous situation that affects the Bay Area (and by extension, Baltimore-Washington), or the entire exemption? Who'd foot the bill, and would that group see it through? No one's going to become this era's Clarence Darrow from challenging the exemption. Still, attracting interest locally might work, since San Jose will always be stuck with its inferiority complex when comparing itself to its cosmopolitan neighbor.

Push for a waterfront ballpark

Chip Johnson of the Chronicle writes in his column that building on...

the Coliseum parking lot -- would be the most expedient, but perhaps not the most desirable, choice of sites.

He notes that the Uptown site is due for groundbreaking later this month. The best site would be along the waterfront, anywhere from the Oakland Army Base to the Estuary. The Army Base does have some potential because it is city owned, but despite the waterfront feature, it's far from downtown and would require a BART station to be built there. All waterfront sites would also require environmental cleanup, which would cost in the tens of millions per site, and there's the issue that the City and Port may actually want to get some amount of money for these sites, since they have some value.

Ballpark plans in motion

In addition to the quotes from Friday's post, it looks as exploration is full steam ahead, according to an article in the Contra Costa Times. The focus is mostly on the Coliseum parking lot, though there's no distinction between the existing lot and the 8.65 acre gravel auxiliary lot adjacent to the south lots.

"Now, we have to look at what's under the site," Wolff said. "Tenants (the Raiders and Warriors) share this site and we have to talk to them. We have to address the parking issue.

"There are difficulties with any venue of this nature," he added. "You will find that to be the case in any place. Elsewhere in the country, you will run into issues such as these, too."

In addition, the city got some news on how far the plan is progressing:

Last week, De La Fuente received an indication -- via a letter from Wolff -- that some advancement already has been made.

"It was official notice to the (Coliseum Authority) that he has engaged an architectural firm in Los Angeles to start exploring the possibility of building a stadium in Oakland," De La Fuente said. "They're taking the lead on it, and I see that as a reason to be optimistic."

If they focus on the existing south lot, a ballpark could remove 4,000 spaces. Someone would have to build a lot of garage parking to make up for the loss. Those parking garages could cost $6-8 million to build, plus there's the fact that garages don't make for quality tailgating.