Pay no attention to that stuff behind the curtain

The recent issue of Silicon Valley Metro had a blurb about the A's/Earthquakes new South Bay office, which is due to open in downtown San Jose soon. The location? The ground floor of the Fairmont San Jose, of course. I wonder if the employees get free vouchers to eat at one of Lew Wolff's restaurants nearby?

The office is located in the middle of a pedestrian mall called Paseo de San Antonio, which acts as a "bridge" between SJSU and Plaza de Cesar Chavez. The Fairmont actually occupies both sides of an entire block of Paseo de San Antonio thanks to an annex built a few years back. (I imagine that Lew once had dreams about holding victory rallies out on the Plaza's stage. Maybe he still does?)

When the announcement was first made about the new Earthquakes group setting up shop downtown, there was no mention of the A's involvement. These days, however, it seems like everything is co-branded (ESPN on ABC? What?) so it only makes sense for the A's to have a presence.

From looking at the picture above, the missing piece appears to be the Earthquakes logo. That must be tied up in licensing somehow, and since the A's technically don't own the Quakes yet, they don't have rights to the logo. The A's logo is quite striking, and given the frequent talk of territorial rights, seems like... an invasion of sorts.

But wait, there's more!

The vinyl window coverings shield anything that's inside from view, but the office's location next to an entrance to the hotel must mean there's another entrance to the office somewhere... Eureka!

And it would appear that there's just a little crack of light coming the edge of the curtain on the left door. Let's take a look at what's in there.

As the Metro blurb noted, it's a wall-sized matte photo of a crowd. I couldn't get a good picture of the other stuff I saw: maple cabinetry, halogen lamps. It's starting to feel like a condominium sales center (physical stadium models and video flythroughs included) with a hint of boutique retail.

Historical footnote: For those wondering if this is some sort of territorial rights violation, remember that the A's once had multiple "A's Clubhouse" team stores. IIRC, there were locations at malls throughout the East Bay. There was one other location: the Great Mall in Milpitas. The stores closed sometime in the late 90's or a few years ago.

How to build a nice stadium on the cheap

The old adage, "Good, Fast, and Cheap - Pick Two!" applies to nearly everything from soup to software. In no way is stadium building spared. Design, materials, labor - all of these things cost time and money, and to get a distinctive, quality product usually requires a couple of years and a few hundred million dollars for starters. Which makes the Stanford Stadium renovation particularly interesting. Done in only nine months and for $100 million dollars, Stanford now has a first-class facility that it can proudly use to showcase to recruits and alumni alike. So did John Arrillaga's baby somehow escape the old maxim? Well.... sort of.

Built in 1921, the old Stanford Stadium was the oldest large venue in the Bay Area. It's had a good history, hosting a Super Bowl and filling in nicely as an understudy for Candlestick Park when the latter was damaged in Loma Prieta. Despite this, the structure itself was very simply built, with bleachers anchored to a man-made oval-shaped hill. The listed capacity of 86,000 made Stanford Stadium appear much larger than it was in person - even though the LA Coliseum held only 20,000 more people, it seemed twice as immense. Stanford Stadium's large stated capacity ended up being a curse. As a small school (in terms of enrollment and alumni) compared to its Pac-10 rivals, the football program had a difficult time selling tickets for a football program whose rollercoaster fortunes made it difficult to sustain a following among the picky Bay Area sports consumer. For years, alumni and the athletics department wanted to redo the stadium to become more like the Oregon's Autzen Stadium: a 54,000-seat venue whose intimacy made it one of the toughest places to play in the country.

In 2005, construction finally began following Stanford's last game versus Notre Dame on November 26, 2005. The project was originally slated to be complete by the team's scheduled first home game against San Jose State this past September 9. Delays forced the opening date to be pushed back one week until the next home game against Navy. Other than that, there were no considerable delays. Crews worked 16 hours a day, every day to get the job done. A design-build approach was used to reduce development time and make decision-making quick. Longtime Stanford booster and alum John Arrillaga, who also seemingly built half the Silicon Valley, took the reins of the project.

So what does $100 million and nine months get you? Let's take a look.

The Upper Deck

As the cheap seats, the upper deck is usually considered a design afterthought, or a method to squeeze in the required number of seats after you've taken care of the rich folks with the suites in club seats. In this case, it's a testament to cost-cutting. Over half of Stanford Stadium's seats (29,000) are in the upper deck, and unlike the previous version, the seats aren't anchored to a hill. Instead, they're supported using steel beams and concrete columns. The secret is in the aluminum risers that hold the seats. Lightweight and quick to fabricate, the risers were undoubtedly the best choice to keep costs down, especially with the rising cost of concrete. Nearly every large stadium in the Bay Area has aluminum risers in use somewhere, including the Coliseum, where the portable field level Mt. Davis seats are moved in and out of the stadium depending on the A's and Raiders' schedules. It's unusual to see aluminum used so broadly, but here it makes sense. Such a technique could be difficult to duplicate at a ballpark due to the irregular shape of a baseball grandstand. I could see all of the outfield seats treated in this manner, which has one particular benefit: stomping on aluminum is a lot noisier than stomping on concrete.

Not only are the risers aluminum, they are the same size throughout the upper deck. A typical baseball or football stadium will have a combination of bleachers and regular seats, and this one is no different. However, in this case the row treads (row depths) are the same regardless of the type of seating. At 30 inches, the treads are better than your garden variety bleachers (24") but not as good as typical chairback seat treads (33"). If you happen to be taller than average height, you'll feel the lack of leg room immediately. The universal nature of the row tread allowed the design to include a maximum number of seats while eliminating quirks that can come up when dealing with different tread widths, such as different aisles for each seating type. 3 inches may not sound that significant, but in this case it means an extra 4 rows in the east grandstand, translating to 1,000 seats.

Consolidate!

In the picture above, you see a short lower deck, the lower concourse immediately above it, then the upper deck and press box. Surprisingly, this is not a common configuration for football. Unlike baseball, where current design trends dictate open concourses that have views of the field, football stadia architects are not bound by such an aesthetic. Instead, they're told to use all available space for seats and suites. The open concourse shown here isn't just for a pretty view, it has a practical purpose as well. New ADA requirements demand that 1% of all seating be wheelchair accessible, with at least the same amount of companion seats. Upper deck seating is inaccessible for wheelchairs from the tunnels/vomitories because they all use stairs or have no landings for wheelchairs. To allocate enough wheelchair seating for both the upper and lower levels, the lower concourse was created. There's also some accessible seating at the top of the upper deck along each corner and end zone. Sidebar: as part of the Coliseum's renovation to bring the Raiders back, the formerly open lower concourse had concrete walls or slatted fences placed in back of many of the seating sections. Nowadays, the only places where you can get a good view behind a seating section are - that's right - in some places where there is wheelchair seating.

The press box is also a place where money was saved. They started by incorporating a pre-existing elevator for the old press box (nice reuse!). The three level structure appears fancy enough, with two separate stadium club areas: one enclosed on the first floor and one on the roof. In between are the "print media" level and the TV/radio level. The building only has seven luxury suites, which is a low number that reflects how college football is sold. While the big program schools have lots of suites (though not nearly as many as NFL stadia), the real money is in those enclosed club areas, where high powered alumni and boosters can mingle and network. By placing all of these facilities in a single structure, assuredly much money was saved as opposed to the usual alternative: spreading thousands of square feet of luxury suites around the ring of the stadium.

Cutting corners
A few other little touches show signs of cost-cutting while not appearing cheap:

• The beams and railings weren't painted, giving them an "industrial chic" look.
• An entire scoreboard/video board from the old stadium was saved and reused.
• The set of arches in the north end aren't adorned with engravings of latin phrases or marble gargoyles. They're clean and simple.
• I went into one of the men's restrooms on the lower concourse and noticed that it didn't have a ceiling. No big deal there, it was well lit. If you're worried about a stench wafting into the concourse, it shouldn't be a problem. The stadium will get used perhaps a couple dozen times a year (at most?).
• The landscaped hill that forms the outer façade appears relatively unchanged, except for some new bushes here and there. The stairs that take you up to the upper concourse (much like the Coliseum) are still there.
  

Spending money where it counts
There are two places where there was no evidence of skimping. First is the fantastic distributed sound system, made of numerous clusters of JBL Pro speakers. It had, to my somewhat trained ear, a nice flat response that was clear from everywhere in the stadium. Best of all, there was little leakage outside the stadium that I could detect - an all-important aspect for a stadium that is close to some well-heeled residential neighborhoods. The reduced footprint of the seating bowl contributes to this effect as it takes less power to provide the PA to everyone in the stadium.
"Hi-Def Football" has been a recent tagline in selling the new Stanford Stadium. The video screens spread throughout don't disappoint. The video/matrix boards (Daktronics, I believe) in both end zones are excellent, even though they aren't needed to broadcast the game since the sightlines are so good from anywhere in the seating bowl. I can't leave out the numerous HD LCD screens throughout the lower concourse (HP provided, of course), though at first glance it looks like they weren't set up properly. The colors appeared a bit washed out, as if they were using simple analog coax when they should've been using some kind of digital or composite connection.

Grading the experience
While just about any change would've been a vast improvement over the old Stanford Stadium, this renovation went beyond what I had expected. The new stadium is not only modern with this millenium's creature comforts, it has legs. If they needed to expand it by 10,000 seats it could be done fairly easily. They preserved the character of the old structure while improving it seismically, giving fans the best views of any Bay Area football stadium to boot. It's possible that the package could start to look dated in a decade or two, but college football is a far less demanding market than the pro sports. That said, I'm not certain that many of the lessons here can be applied to a new A's ballpark. There are too many different and segmented markets that have to be catered to at a MLB facility. MLB is not simply about the game anymore. It's about having as many avenues as possible to take a fan's hard-earned cash. Stanford Stadium doesn't speak to that, at least not with $3 hot dogs and one-size-fits-all treads. Now if the Cardinal can only field a decent team...

New Coliseum lease in the works

The Trib's Paul T. Rosynsky gets the scoop on a new Coliseum lease extension, but in addition he sheds light on the weirdly complicated political machine that exists within and around the Coliseum Authority.

Consider the fact that the guy getting the deal done, Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, isn't even on the current Coliseum Authority board. He was kicked out as part of a power play when, several years ago, Haggerty pushed for Fremont as an option in the HOK study. According to the article, Haggerty is scheduled to rejoin the board soon. As a supe, he'll also have the chance to rubber stamp the very deal he put together as part of its final approval process. Who asked him to make the deal? Authority President Gail Steele, who is also a supe - and just as important, in whose district the Pacific Commons land lies. Why? Probably because Haggerty has a good working relationship with Wolff - as far as we know.

With Nate Miley soon leaving the Authority board, the only real holdout left is IDLF. If IDLF is really committed to keeping the team in Oakland, it will soon become his time to show his hand.

A's won't hit 2 million but will make more money?

The final totals aren't in yet, but with one week left in the A's home schedule, the A's have pulled in slightly less than 1.8 million fans. According to Attendance Watch (sidebar on the right), the team has averaged 24,251 per game over 74 dates. The projected total for the full 81-game season is 1,964,352. That makes them over one game's attendance short of 2 million.

That may sound disappointing, but based on comments by Lew Wolff and Michael Crowley, they're satisfied with the turnout. I've noticed that many critics of the third deck closure have claimed the strategy would fail, but they didn't exactly say what failure meant. If it meant that the A's wouldn't boost attendance, there's no news there because at no point did the front office indicate that total attendance would rise. Instead, they pointed to increases in season ticket and advance sales, which appears to have happened. All of this came at a price - the reduction in walk-up makes the A's far less accessible for younger or less wealthy fans. As I posited at the beginning of the season, sections 315-319 were perhaps too good for their price. By eliminating those sections, $10 seats (other than the regular bleachers) are what they are in most other MLB stadia: cheap seats with compromised views.

Even with the dropoff, ticket prices were raised 25%. Ticket prices have risen steadily since the start of the A's recent run of success. The A's average ticket price is now in line with the league average.

So really it's a matter of matching or surpassing revenue targets by not dropping attendance 25%. No team readily releases its finances to the public, so the following chart is just a guess. It's the product of the past two charts' data while factoring in a 15% discount. That should cover the inherent discounts in season ticket packages, promotional discounts such as BART Double Play Wednesdays, and other changes. It does not take into account revenue from suites or special premium seats like the Diamond Level.

If my assumptions are correct, that's a 17% increase over 2005, and over double (121%) the revenue of the year 2000. Talk about beating the recession. At the same time, payroll is up 12% over 2005 and almost double (94%) over 2000, so it's not as if it's all going to the owners. With the incentives that Frank Thomas will earn this season, the numbers will line up much more evenly (payroll up 17% over 2005 and slightly over double 2000's payroll).

What can we glean from this? All we can say at this point is that the A's are able to pay the bills and make some money for themselves, assuming that revenue sharing receipts are similar to what the A's have received over the past two CBA's. Looking at the trend from 2001 through 2005, the A's would've been hard pressed to fund the payroll by continuing with the previous pricing scheme. But what would've happened had they kept the third deck open and simply raised ticket prices 9% (the trend) across the board? Unless they had an enormous (20% or more) spike in attendance, they would've been short. Sure, they could've had other revenue coming from other sources such as the MLB national media deals, but come on - these people aren't in business to lose money, at least not on a regular basis. If you're looking for a nefarious scheme to swindle fans, it's not here. It's my sincere hope that in the new venue there will be creative methods of getting affordable tickets for the small, but vocal group of disenfranchised fans affected by the third deck closure. I've come up with a couple of ideas on this blog, and I think I've got a few more up my sleeve.

BTW, the A's have an outside chance of surpassing the 2 million mark. However, they'd have to average 30,000 per game for the rest of the homestand to do it. Considering the next four games will be against an out-of-contention, Travis Hafner-less Cleveland Indians squad, I can't see it happening.

Coliseum extension talks die

Any time it takes several months to essentially repeat a pre-existing financial arrangement, something must be amiss. And so tonight it's being reported that talks between the A's and Coliseum JPA over a three-year lease extension have broken down. This obviously sets the stage for the A's last season in Oakland to be 2010. Here are some links:

• Josh Suchon's Contra Costa Times article
• AP story
• ABC7/KGO anchor Jessica Aguirre's interview with Lew Wolff
  

This puts the A's in a little bit of a bind. Wolff admitted in the Aguirre interview (worthwhile read - Wolff explains the funding mechanism) that it would take at least a year for environmental and other studies to be completed. That's an indicator that the previous EIR's for the original Pacific Commons wouldn't simply be accepted with addenda or other changes that reflected the modified scope of the project. Assuming everything went smoothly from this point forward, it's possible construction could start either in the spring or summer of 2007, but any number of things could delay the project. 48 months is plenty of time to build a ballpark - especially are smaller-than-MLB-normal park. The A's will be helped by the fact that there's no demolition involved.

Should the delay push the groundbreaking out, the team could still get started by the end of the 2007 season without significant impact. If it goes beyond the end of the 2008 season, the A's would be faced with a number of options, none of which are terribly palatable:

• Ask for a short-term extension of the Coliseum lease for 3 months or so. They'll likely pay through the nose for such an option, and it's possible that it wouldn't even be on the table if the JPA and the Raiders are already talking about a Coliseum renovation that makes the bowl even more of a football-specific venue (don't expect the Raiders to bolt for LA). Precedent: the Seattle Mariners used the Kingdome for the first part of the 1999 season when delays pushed the opening of Safeco Field until July 15.
  
• Use Raley Field as a temporary home for the first half of the season. This would be similar to the how the A's were forced to play at Las Vegas' Cashman Field for the first few weeks of the 1996 season. At least the facilities at Raley are in significantly better shape than utilitarian Cashman. Raley could conceivably be expanded by some 5-10,000 seats, but that would have to be negotiated since the A's-River Cats deal ends in 2010. Impact to the River Cats' schedule is unknown.
  
• Ask the Giants to use SBC Park temporarily. While there is precedent to crosstown rivals using each others' parks (Precedent: the Yanks used the Mets' Shea Stadium in 1975-76 while the House that Ruth Built was getting modernized), don't count on it happening.
  

My guess is that the greatest opposition will come from environmental and land use advocates, as well as Fremont residents who either don't want a large project like a ballpark in town and/or don't support any potential subsidies for the A's - regardless of what shape those subsidies take. There promises to be an outcry from the stay-in-Oakland crowd, but it remains to be seen exactly strong it will stay or how it will evolve over the next year or so.

One other thing - Lew put a price tag on the stadium without land: $400 million (thanks James).

Hope for Sacramento?

The A's recently signed a four-year extension to their development agreement with the Sacramento River Cats. The key here is that the agreement runs through 2010. That's pretty much the same year that the A's other agreements - leases, radio, television - run out.

From a strategic standpoint, it puts the A's in an extremely flexible position once the current arrangements end, whether it's in the Bay Area or beyond. But does that mean a potential exodus to Sacramento? Bee columnist Marcus Bretón, who has been championing the A's moving to Sac for several years, says it's possible but isn't counting on such a development.

Any talk about Sacramento has been complicated by joint efforts of downtown Sacramento business leaders and the Kings to build a downtown arena. The arena would be located on the site of a 240-acre, abandoned Union Pacific railyard. Two measures are on the November ballot for a 1/4-cent sales tax hike in Sacramento county as well as a plan to develop the railyard, which would conceivably include the arena. However, yesterday the Maloofs broke off talks with the city/county over the size and scope of the arena piece. Supposedly the plan is short on parking for the arena, among other things.

Does this provide an opening for the A's? It's possible, but it would be a long shot. First off, a ballpark alone could have double the physical footprint of an arena (in this plan the arena is 8.5 acres, a ballpark could be 12-18 acres). While parking requirements in the area adjacent to a ballpark may not be as large as what the Kings are looking for, there'd still be a requirement of some 1,200 spaces or more. That would stretch the ballpark's scope to around 20 acres, which is exactly the amount of land being allocated for the entire arena/entertainment district area.

For Sacramento to even be able to entertain the A's in this regard, several things would have to happen:

• Measures Q (authorizes usage of funds from Measure R) & R (1/4-cent sales tax hike over 15 years) must pass
• The Kings choose not to go with a downtown arena (possible, given a recent statement by Joe Maloof)
• Downtown interests redo their redevelopment plan to include a ballpark instead of an arena
• City/county allow the Kings to build elsewhere without being required to provide public funds - this could mean in or out of Sacramento

Supposedly the tax would generate some $1 billion or more over the 15 years of the tax hike. Keep in mind that this money would not just go towards a ballpark. It would go towards the development of the remaining 220 acres, and that means large amounts of infrastructure. Cleanup of the land is expected to be costly. The land purchase is still under negotiation. I would be surprised if the various parties would be able to turn around and get something done in a year. My guess is that it won't.

Bretón misreads the A's situation in his article. He writes that the A's have been faithful to the East Bay by virtue of the talks with Fremont, but based on Lew Wolff's speech for the San Jose Chamber last week, it's only true if "East Bay" were replaced by "Greater Bay Area."

News from around the land

One more "Choose or Lose the A's" event is slated for this Friday at 5:00 in the Coliseum B-Lot. More info can be found at the Green Stampede and A's Fan Radio myspace pages.

In SI's annual Fan Value Index (ratings based on surveyed attendees at various games), McAfee Coliseum came in 20th out of the 30 MLB parks. As usual, there's a cheap shot at the idea of the A's moving to Vegas or Louisville (???), but these days that comes with the territory. The Coliseum scores high in terms of Accessibility (public transportation, parking) and Team (of course) but low in Neighborhood. Wrigley Field, of all places, scores lower - but that's due to the Cubs being so awful this season. One thing that deserves reading further: the Accessibility section of each ballpark is quite telling. Compare the two Bay Area ballparks' results to the LA parks. If Fremont is the place, the challenge will be in convincing the public that the experience will be more like the former than the latter.

There are a slough of articles (Merc, Chron, Ratto) about the opening of the new Stanford Stadium this weekend. The privately-financed project, which has taken just over 9 months and $100 million, is considered a minor miracle in stadium development parlance. I'll go into why next week after I check the place out during its inaugural game on Saturday night.

In St. Louis, the Cardinals have stretched out their hands for what could be $100 million in subsidies to fund their updated version of a ballpark village. This project is one to watch for it could provide a blueprint as to how an A's ballpark village might look, even if the funding methods aren't the same.

Lew reveals tidbit on Extra Innings

Remember how Lew Wolff in the beginning of the season that he expects to make an announcement about the A's future home by the end of the season? Well, it appears that he now expects to push that date out until perhaps the end of the year. He admitted as much during Robert Buan's interview with him after today's comeback victory. Wolff said that things are progressing on the ballpark front, but didn't get into any specifics. He also mentioned that he's part of baseball's Enterprise committee (which covers branding among many business-related aspects), and that he wants to be part of the Advanced Media committee (internet).

Honestly, this shouldn't shock anyone. These deals can take a long time to gestate even if on the surface they appear simple. The possible delay may be interpreted any number of ways. I'll stay away from that kind of speculation for now.

Pacific Commons Wetlands

On my way to the Coliseum over the weekend I stopped off at Pacific Commons to see if anything has happened at the site. No surprises there. Earthmoving equipment was in the same place as before. The Auto Mall is filling in nicely with a new Lexus dealership almost completed at the south end. A Claim Jumper location opened while I was away. And cows are grazing on the meadows that intermingle with the marsh.

What? Cows in Fremont? (queue the old Berkeley Farms ad)

The CHP building whose sign is visible in the top left corner is the one you pass on the left when heading south on 880. It is across the freeway from Pacific Commons.

Cows make for pretty effective growth control. You'll see them frequently on hillsides on both sides of the bay acting as a natural fire retardant. Decades ago, the irrepressible Charles O. Finley had goats manicure the grass at KC Muni. As part of the Pacific Commons wetlands preservation and restoration project, maintenance has to be kept up on some of the grassy areas of the tidal marsh. Enter a non-native species to take care of the growth. The cows seem to like hanging out closer to the freeway. This is probably due to taller grasses the further inland one goes.

---

In the comments thread of another post, James asked about the wetlands area and whether it would be developed to any degree. To that end I refer you to the following links from Wetland Tracker:

• Pacific Commons Wetlands Project Map
• Ecosystem Restoration Plan
  

The map contains the development map and historical detail, including mentions of the old Sky Sailing Airport and an abandoned drive-in theater. A 390-acre preserve has been created, and a 49-acre park is planned. That park is near the location of a planned Amtrak/ACE station.

Here's a map of the project site, divided into the development parcel and the preserve.

The yellow area is considered the development area. Any other white area has already been developed. The gray area is the preserve. The green area is a bit of a question mark. Informal calculation of the yellow area has it sized at around 120-130 acres, while the green area (if included) adds 35 more. I'll need to verify this with the city and county. The green area has been cleared out and flattened, so at least it looks like it's waiting for something to be built on it.

I intentionally left "existing landfill" in the cropped map. FYI, it has not smelled any time I have gone into the Pacific Commons area. That's at least a couple dozen times over the past year.

If the green area is truly part of the development area, it's where I think the ballpark should go. Here's why:

• 35 acres is sufficient for the immediate ballpark village area, which would include the stadium, museum, hotel, and premium/priority parking.
• The parcel would as a buffer between the residential area and the preserve.
• The area is the closest usable point to the planned Amtrak/ACE station, slightly under a mile away.
  
• Depending on the types of buildings erected, a view to the outfield could have a mini-city of towers framed by Mission Peak and the surrounding hills.
• Traffic can be routed along Cushing Parkway, which would help prevent fans from invading the parking lots of the big box stores. Traffic from the north could run through the Auto Mall (dealers will love the traffic), and traffic from the south would reach the area directly from Cushing.
  

By planning in this manner, residential buildings could be placed in the northeastern corner (the yellow area that juts out to the left). There's room there for 1000-2000 units based on typical densities. That would leave almost 100 acres remaining for other commercial development and parking. Want to build a Santana Row/Bay Street type of development between the ballpark and the residential area? No problem. Does Cisco want to build a set of signature towers in the outfield? Sure thing. Even with the negotiations that will most certainly have to commence with the change in development plans, there are ways to mitigate impacts that benefit the public, the wetlands, and the developers.

Which gets me to the last topic tonight. James also asked about trails or beautification that would occur at the existing wetlands, which would be beautiful except for the landfills and salt ponds that currently take up much of the area. As you may already know, many of the salt ponds are being reclaimed as part of the SFO runway extension deal. Cargill sold much of their salt ponds to the government, which in turn is starting the transformation of salt ponds back into wetlands. The Alviso portion of the project abuts the southern tip of the Pacific Commons area. As the project moves forward, one of the goals is to complete the Bay Trail, the network of trails and paths that will ring the bay.

Currently there are a number of disjointed and often difficult-to-access trails of varying shape. The double-orange line shows an unimproved trail. The gray dotted lines show planned trails. Red lines are existing trails or bike paths. Station Island, which is also known by the name Drawbridge, once had inhabitants and a thriving frontier town economy, but with the changes made by the creation of the salt ponds, eventually started to sink into the bay. Now it's no longer safe to walk on the islands (believe me, I know this firsthand) even though Amtrak/ACE/Union Pacific trains run through it on an elevated track everyday. The first step is to replenish the wetlands. Afterwards, we can talk trails. While there may be a park buffer between the developed area and the wetlands, it'll be a thin sliver compared to the thousands of acres of wetlands.

---

I'm a bit afraid that the picture of cattle at the top will cause people to deride Fremont as a cowtown, a la Sacramento. Is that better or worse than being called a bedroom community?

San Jose: Wolff throws in the towel

When I posted a few weeks ago on Lew Wolff's SJ Chamber talk, I discussed the possibility that he may once and for all eliminate Downtown San Jose from all future discussions. On Wednesday, Wolff finally made it official. Rumors of this were present as early as six months ago, but I wanted to see something official first.

Barry Witt's article in the Merc sheds light on a few new items that fill in the gaps quite a bit:

• Wolff tried to broker deals to get the rights to Santa Clara County, but Giants ownership was unwilling to give them up.
• He tried even before he had become managing partner.

This is certainly different from Wolff's "We're focusing on Oakland" stance of April 2005, when he took control of the team. Then again, it's consistent with his statements that he wouldn't challenge the Giants' rights. It's possible that discussions over territorial rights date back to when Wolff was given the VP of Venue Development title.

Chris De Benedetti's wrap-up of the event has a more East Bay-tinged flavor and includes quotes from Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz, Oakland City Council member Larry Reid, and Mike Healy, spokesman for Oakland mayor-elect Ron Dellums.

There have been clues that pointed to this. Chief among them is #1 San Jose backer Mark Purdy's change from Fremont as a negotiating ploy to Fremont as the best alternative given the circumstances. This didn't happen overnight. Purdy's newest article sounds like a sales pitch to the many Baseball San Jose supporters who need to be convinced to support the Fremont ballpark - it won't work financially unless their corporate dollars buy those suites, ads, and club seats.

Purdy dives further into the rumor mill with the following:

"There are plenty of murmurs in Silicon Valley circles that Cisco is smitten with the idea of a partnership with the A's, on many levels -- including naming rights to the ballpark. There are rumblings out of Cisco's offices that concepts for a 'ballpark of the future' have already been brainstormed and game-planned. The project allegedly has support from the highest levels, including CEO John Chambers."

Even though I'm a nerd who works in high tech, I hope "ballpark of the future" doesn't lend itself to dehumanizing the game. All I want is for AM radio reception to work in the ballpark.

I was supposed to attend the event this morning but had to attend to some personal matters. Jay Hipps from Soccer Silicon Valley has audio from the event if you're interested. There is some news from the soccer/Quakes front as well.

Fremont's budget woes

A handful of articles have been put out over the past few months questioning how infrastructure will be paid for at Pacific Commons should a ballpark come in. Chief among these concerns is the extra policing that will be required for event security, traffic control, and additional presence in the new “entertainment district” that should be expected. Officer.com, a police industry website, has the Argus story from June detailing Fremont’s budget woes. In the story are the following nuggets:

• AT&T Park typically has 18 SFPD officers on staff for a Giants game, 24 for Giants-Dodgers games
• The Giants pay for security inside the park, SF City/County pays for traffic/crowd control outside the park.
• In 2005, overtime for Giants games cost $250,000.
  
• Fremont typically has only 16 officers deployed at any one time throughout the entire city.
• Fremont has slashed its budget by cutting $25 million and 220 jobs over the past few years.
• Fremont may have to dip into its reserve fund to pay for 2006-07 city services.
  

Sounds daunting, doesn't it? It does, but only when viewed through the prism of those facts above. There are several things to keep in mind:

• Population has grown 1-2% in the past 5 years. That along with the state's budget crunch have severely limited appropriations to Fremont. With the creation of new housing at Pacific Commons (5,000-10,000 new residents), by law appropriations will grow proportionally.
  
• Rezoning and reassessment of the remaining Pacific Commons should increase property tax revenues significantly, on the order of several million dollars per year. Fremont gets 15% of every property tax dollar, while Alameda County gets 20% into its general fund.
• New retail development will increase sales tax revenue. Of the 8.75% sales tax rate in Alameda County, a 0.5% chunk automatically goes towards local public safety. Should 250,000 new square feet be built, that small 0.5% chunk would translate to as much as $500,000 per year alone for local public safety (based on $400 per square foot, per year in sales).
• Hotel tax revenue growth has been flat since the dot-com bust. The creation of a new hotel (a new Hilton to replace the old Fremont Hilton?) and buzz in the South Fremont area could translate into increased revenues, especially the Fremont Marriott. Fremont's hotel tax is 8%, lower than both Oakland (11%) and San Jose (10%), so there is room for a hotel tax hike if it's warranted.
  

If all of that fails to bring in the necessary revenue, there is always one possibility: a ticket tax. Historically, such a tax has proven unappealing to teams because they see a ticket tax as eating into their own ticket revenue. However, even a nominal tax - say, 50 cents per ticket - should produce upwards of $1 million per year depending on attendance. That should go a long way towards funding the necessary police presence at Pacific Commons. The introduction of such a tax will be a bone of contention. The good thing about it is that the tax wouldn't be used to pay down any bond-related debt, only for budgeted services.

If anything, the big question is where the staffing will come from. Fremont certainly isn't going to hire a dozen or so police officers just to staff A's games. Much of the time stadium detail is overtime work and is charged accordingly. It's possible that staff will have to come from neighboring jurisdictions such as Newark and Union City. The Alameda County Sheriff's department may be tapped as well. The Sheriff's department has grown as a result of the closure of the Oakland City Jail, though I'm no expert as to how prison guard work translates into stadium detail.

Fire and emergency services are no small requirement either, and both of those have been hit by the budget crunch. Again, the incremental increases in revenue should help this even if the state's budget problems remain. The fact is that the city needs to grow economically to insulate itself against future crises.

As Fremont celebrates its 50th anniversary, its leaders need to plot how the next 10, 20, 50 years will look. A decision on the ballpark development will go a long way towards establishing that legacy.

Six Degrees of Lew

NBC11's Raj Mathai ended the sports section of the tonight's late newscast with a mention of a Merc article about the Sharks' pursuit of a pro hoops franchise. Mathai noted that the Sharks' failed bid for the Seattle Sonics involved one particular big-money guy at the end: Oracle's Larry Ellison. The Sonics have already been sold to business interests from Oklahoma City, who last season played gracious and enthusiastic part-time hosts to the Katrina-displaced New Orleans Hornets. New owner Clay Bennett sounds diplomatic so far but just about everyone sees the skids being greased for a hasty exit.

The Sharks' initial bid appeared dead a few weeks ago, but now it appears that the Sharks will go to the City of San Jose looking for upgrades to HP Pavilion, which could make the Tank more attractive for an NBA team. The actual request is to authorize a study to see what improvements would be required, similar in scope to the ballpark study - though precluding an entirely new arena. While some technological upgrades would be welcome - particularly in the form of upgraded video boards, fascia boards, and HDTV monitors - I sincerely doubt that mere upgrades will make a NBA team leap to SJ. To make a deal attractive for a non-Sharks-owned team, the NBA team would be looking for a large piece of the Pavilion's current revenue stream, a piece that the Sharks would be loathe to give up. This would apply to the Sacramento Kings should their efforts to build a downtown Sac arena wither. If the Maloof brothers were to show interest in selling the team to San Jose interests, it would be a different story. There are problems with the Warriors, who aren't going to take a new competitor to their market lying down. Then there's the overlord himself, David Stern. From a strategic standpoint, it makes little sense to use SJ as anything more than a stalking horse. Stern has been more vociferous in his complaints than Sonics ownership, which tells me that he's actually interested in keeping them there. If he simply wanted a stress-free arena deal (market notwithstanding), the Sonics, Kings, or Hornets would already be signed long term to OKC, Vegas, Anaheim, or ahem, San Jose.

---

Speaking of the Warriors, they and the Coliseum Authority still haven't gotten a naming rights deal in place for the Oakland Arena. There isn't officially a naming rights sponsor for the new Arizona Cardinals stadium, but there is at least one suitor who has been turned down: hip mexican restaurant chain pink taco. pink taco is not some mom-and-pop taqueria. It's run by Harry Morton, son of Hard Rock Cafe/Hotel/Casino and Morton's Steakhouse proprietor Peter Morton. They're apparently serious, according to a press release and an article in The Business Journal of Phoenix. The Morton family just sold off the Hard Rock brand for some $700 million.

---

Interestingly enough, a Morton's location is scheduled to open in downtown San Jose as part of a huge refurbishment of Park Center Plaza. The complex, which was once a major part of Lew Wolff's portfolio, could soon spawn a big name competitor to Wolff's existing restaurants. And on the morning of August 30, Wolff will speak about the future of downtown San Jose a block away from Park Center Plaza at Adobe.

(Yes, I could've mentioned Wolff's previous stint as a part owner of the Warriors, but I chose the more circuitous route.)

Wednesday night "rumble"

Wednesday night's game against the M's might not turn into Sharks vs. Jets, but it should still be fairly compelling. While the day is officially Fremont Day at the A's (with full pregame regalia), a "There is No 'A' in Fremont" rally will be held outside the stadium. I don't come back from overseas until this weekend, so I won't be there. Whatever happens, please keep it civil folks, and focus on the action on the field.

In related news, the Argus's Chris De Benedetti has a non-update of the Pacific Commons situation, but also has a quote from a NUMMI spokesperson that indicate that the A's and NUMMI have not had talks regarding the Warm Springs site. We'll have to wait until Wolff's speech at the end of the month for anything substantive.

Lew to speak at SJ Chamber

Today's check of the BigSoccer forums netted a thread titled "Lew Wolff to speak at SJ Chamber." The first post has the following blurb from member JayCee:

Taken from the Chamber Advocate Newsletter, August 2006

The Oakland A's owner, Lew Wolff, will be the guest speaker at the San Jose Chamber's, Silicon Valley Buzz, on Wednesday August 30th.

He will discuss hot topics, including the future of baseball in San Jose and the possibility of securing a professional soccer team for Silicon Valley, etc, etc.

The Silicon Valley Morning Buzz will be held at Adobe in the Gallery Room, 345 Park Ave, San Jose from 8am-9:30am. The event is free for Chamber members and $15 for prospecitve members. For more information and registration, call (408) 291-5286.

With less than two months to go in the season, this is about the right time for the machine to get going again. It was roughly one year ago that the Coliseum North presentation was made, and Wolff has publicly stated that he wants to have everything wrapped up by the end of the season.

What will Lew say to all those people who are by-in-large quite familiar and friendly with him? Will he drive a stake in the heart of San Jose's downtown ballpark dreams? Will he publicly say that the team's name will be changed to the San Jose A's? Will he completely confirm the Fremont project? In a summer that has generally lacked action on the ballpark front, the potential for news is huge. Then again, the man knows how to play the media game, so don't get your hopes up.

---

There was also an article on Wolff and his "remote" ownership of the A's from the LA Times.

Third Deck Closure Revisited (again)

Articles from both the Contra Costa Times and the Sacramento Bee attempt to assess at midseason the effects of the third deck closure. In both pieces, A's President Michael Crowley explains that the decrease in average attendance is what was expected, as long as the customer experience was enhanced - which according to them, it has. The Bee's article has quotes from a Vacaville fan who misses the ability to walkup on gameday to get third deck seats - as do I. The net effect - increased advanced ticket sales - was alluded to but not expounded upon.

There's a sense of overstatement when looking at the numbers, especially because anyone who looks at them will have a particular perspective - that of a lamenting, displaced fan, or that of a fan who likes the crowd feel more, or even a person like me who dispassionately views the change. With that in mind, here are a couple of (uh-oh, here it comes) graphs that might give you a better understanding.


The graph above (click the pic for a larger version) shows the volatility of the A's attendance over the last 1 1/2 seasons. Also included is the Giants' 2005 trend, which thanks to high numbers of season ticket holders is not nearly as volatile as the A's. I wrote in April that one of the big points was to make the demand curve less elastic, and while that's happened in part due to the artificial capping of the Coliseum's capacity, I imagine that the effect may not be as good as desired. Excuses abound from the wet, cold spring to the A's usual May slide to the lack of a big time, in-his-prime slugger. Frankly, if Eric Chavez had 25 HR and 75 RBI by now the A's attendance would be better, since their record would probably be better as well.

This graph shows the change in average attendance over the season. In this case, it's much easier to see how the May doldrums affect the A's and how things trend up as the weather heats up. Normally, the A's go on a tear in June and July that translates into increased interest for August. Injuries resurface towards the end of August, and despite the team usually being in a pennant race, performance and attendance both tend to peter out by the end of September. The occasional blip or uptick comes from one of the big series with the Giants, Yankees, or BoSox, or from a promotional night such as a fireworks show or bobblehead giveaway.

From the average attendance graph, the picture doesn't look as bad since the difference between the A's attendance this season and last season at the 47-game mark is less than 1,800 per game, or a whopping 7%. However, the A's would have to average 31,000 per game from now until the end of the season to eclipse last season's total - though that's not the goal. The problem is now the same as always: will the A's turn on the jets in the second half and pull away, or will the injuries and generally poor hitting bite them come the last two weeks of the season? That will be the true deciding factor. This is the Bay Area, after all. We are a fickle bunch (Sharks fans aside) and we don't suffer mediocre play gladly. And with the BoSox offering retribution for the A's surprising performance last week at Fenway, it's just more reason for fans to scratch their heads and sit on the fence. Fencesitters don't always head out to ballgames, not even during a heatwave.

SJ Bizjournal articles

Update:
I've had a chance to read the articles (thanks to all who have helped) so I can now give me take on them:

• The NUMMI article introduces a new factor that I hadn't been aware of - the building of a hybrid car plant. If Toyota's smart they'll move forward with the hybrid plant, despite the high costs of doing business here. The fact that a Prius or Highlander hybrid is actually built here in California is pure PR gold for Toyota and should increase sales volumes, especially within the state. They'd also finally be able to do something constructive with the land without worrying about encroaching development. If NUMMI is still concerned about residential development next to the plant, having another plant running 24/7 next door should eliminate the threat. Whatever their plans are, a plant sounds better than having a parts distribution center, which was under consideration when I called NUMMI last year.
• Still, the NUMMI site has to look attractive just for the potential to a future BART, even if there's no timeframe for BART to come to Warm Springs right now. As I understand it, Santa Clara County leaders are redoing their plan to scale the Santa Clara extension back to Milpitas or Berryessa. That would impact ridership estimates, but at least this time they could look realistic. Since VTA's light rail ridership is up and should continue to rise, it might be a good time to explore and emphasize a LRT-to-BART link at the Great Mall. Fremont Mayor Wasserman seems to have his preference of sites - Pacific Commons.
  
• Some of you have asked me if there's a possible that both sites (or portions thereof) could be used - one for the ballpark and village (NUMMI) and the other for housing (PacCom). I suppose it could be done, but it would require two new and completely different environmental impact reports, marketing changes and new infrastructure requirements. I won't rule it out, but it looks prohibitively expensive unless someone can figure out a way to divvy up the land appropriately.
• As for Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone, he's always been the head cheerleader. As one of the leaders of Baseball San Jose he's always been out in front, despite the political machinations that have occurred within. Notice that he stops short of outright slamming Fremont, other than to say that downtown (San Jose, that is) is preferable to suburban. There's a reason why...
  

---

As I am not a print subscriber, I don't have access to the new articles from today's edition of the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal. And considering the fact that I am nearly 7,500 miles away from a local newstand or vending machine that carries the paper, I'm pretty much S.O.L. on the articles. In fact, last week I was asked if they could use one of my overhead graphics. Alas, I was "in the bush" so to speak. If one of you gentle readers would be nice enough to recap the articles and send me your thoughts, it would be much appreciated.

Here are the links:

• NUMMI in driver's seat on A's stadium deal
• Rival stadium sites offer challenges
• Stone still sees a clear path that leads A's to San Jose

Absent the actual text, I'll refrain from commenting on the articles, except that the headlines are rather salacious.

Two words: UGH. LEE.

I just got a look at HNTB's concept for the new 49ers stadium:



How uninspiring. It doesn't help that the gold seats appear beige in the picture. Gone are the sweeping lines of the HOK design. So is the Mills mall, and with it, probably the $100 million that was promised for the project by the city (because of the jobs that come with the mall). The boxy layout is eerily reminiscent of work done by HNTB across the bay, otherwise known as Mount Davis. In fact, take the entire sideline section in shadow. Does it not look just a little like the Coliseum outfield?

It should be pointed out that like the A's ballpark concept by 360, there's no exterior treatment on this stadium, so it can't be judged by a face that doesn't exist. Still, while stacking the suites and boxes on one side of the field is commendable for cost-cutting and better sightlines for fans, the whole package can't help but look a bit like a bloated SEC college football stadium. The concept works well for Ford Field, where it's wrapped in a neat gimmick - the use of an office building in the stadium bowl covered by a dome - but it doesn't look right in this case. That big structure behind the suites looks like a retaining wall to prevent the nearby hill from collapsing onto it.

Supposedly the design is flexible enough to work as an Olympic stadium should the time come in 2016. I can see where the use of large numbers of portable seats (also like Mt. Davis) could make such a concept work. The open north end should facilitate this as well. But does anyone remember what Atlanta's Olympic Stadium looked like prior to its conversion to Turner Field? Thought so. This design just deadpans "bland."

Fox/TBS ink new national TV deal

In case you missed it in the past couple of days (I did while I was flying back to Australia - again), MLB sewed up its national broadcasting rights for the next seven years by inking deals with Fox and TBS. The actual money being doled out to MLB by the networks is actually going to be about the same if not less than the previous Fox-only contract. Let's tally up the national TV money:

• Fox - ~$250 million per year for 7 years. Includes World Series, All Star Game, national Saturday broadcasts, and alternating ALCS and NLCS based on the year.
• TBS - ~$150 million per year for 7 years. Includes ALDS and NLDS, and whichever LCS Fox does not pick up. Deal includes 26 Sunday afternoon games (new schedule, not the ESPN Sunday night game) per season. Atlanta Braves broadcasts will be reduced, which probably means Turner South will take over many of the Braves' games.
  
• ESPN - $296 million per year for 7 more years (new deal started this season). Includes Sunday night and Wednesday night broadcasts along with certain marquee and late season matchups (usually Yankees-Red Sox). Does not include playoff games.
  

Combined, it comes to upwards of $700 million per year through 2013 ($5 billion total), not including money gotten from the Japanese TV deals, internet streaming through MLB Advanced Media, and various other rights fees. Still, this pales in comparison to the NFL's whopping $3.7 billion per year in national TV rights. Of course, that's comparing apples with oranges since MLB makes up the difference with tremendous amounts of locally generated revenue, including local TV rights.

The news sets the table for the upcoming CBA negotiations, which as mentioned before, are more a battle between big and small market owners than between owners and labor.

Alioto named Quakes Exec VP

In a move that foretells the A's acquisition of Earthquakes v. 3.0, the team's sales and marketing veep, David Alioto, has accepted the newly created position of Executive VP of Earthquakes Soccer, LLC. According to the press release, Alioto "will oversee business operations, sponsorship opportunities, develop sponsorship opportunities and assist in venue development surrounding A's ownership's attempt at securing a soccer specific stadium in the Bay Area for a Major League Soccer franchise."

Basically, it means Alioto will be doing for the Quakes what Michael Crowley currently does as President of the A's - except there's no team yet, of course. Good luck to Alioto on negotiating the extremely murky waters that define San Jose politics. Alioto may end up leaning a bit on both Crowley's and Lew Wolff's South Bay local status to get the SSS deal done. I'd like to see the Quakes get the benefit of some clever McCann-Erickson ad campaigns, the same kinds used for the A's the last couple of years.

From a strategic standpoint, there's something attractive about being able to pool certain parts of operations for the two teams. The seasons run concurrently, so some stadium operations can be consolidated. Sponsorship opportunities can be pitched to cater to the different audiences. Packages of club seats and suites may look attractive if they're for two teams (and all related venues' events) instead of just one. The ballpark financing concept is already out-of-the-box, why not sales as well? (Trivia note: According to Andrew Zimbalist's splendid book In the Best Interests of Baseball?, MLB Advanced Media runs the MLS website.)

Coliseum BART lot mockup

I promised this a couple weeks ago, so here it is:

According to city records the combined parcels that make up the BART lot make up some 8-9 acres, 10-11 acres including some the extra streets that run through the lot. The neighborhood northeast of the ballpark has no real buffer separating it from the lot aside from some small auto shop/garage-type buildings. Residents there would be impacted by noise and possibly light pollution. The only ways to orient the field are north (shown), east (similar to the Coliseum's field orientation), or south/southeast (field facing Hegenberger Road).

Purdy puts Wolff at top of power player list

The Merc's newest edition of their "Bay Area's Most Powerful Sports Figures" is due, and columnist Mark Purdy has placed Lew Wolff at the very top. That's not surprising. Wolff currently controls the fates of two sports franchises - the A's and the future Quakes - and his deals may indirectly affect revenues for all other major pro sports teams in the region due to club/suite and ad revenues.

While A's ownership including Wolff (and family, I'm sure), President Michael Crowley, and GM Billy Beane have been living it up in Germany recently while attending the World Cup. Undoubtedly, they've gotten pointers looking at new and refurbished stadia, many of which hold a baseball-friendly capacity of 40,000. Before soccer fans get their hopes up, costs will prohibit a European-style fully-enclosed, mostly roofed stadium from being constructed here (unless someone other than the A's is willing to foot the bill). In the meantime, putting out a shingle for an Earthquakes office and retail store could help salve the wound created when the team Mayflowered its way to Houston.

Purdy takes a position that is a definite shift from what he has argued in the past. Instead of pitching Fremont as a diversionary tactic while the A's deal with San Jose, Fremont is meriting real consideration. As the greatest media flagwaver for the San Jose effort, this is almost downright earthshattering.

Back to the list. Bay Area sports history has had a huge range of personalities and styles among its power brokers, whether they were brilliant (Wally Haas, Peter Magowan, Eddie DeBartolo), inept (John York, Chris Cohan, Steve Schott), or somewhere in between (Al Davis, Bob Lurie). Superstar players and coaches also inhabit the list, as do some non-print media types. Wolff's ascent to the top of the list is a testament to how Wolff understands and plays the media game. Other than Trib columnist Art Spander, Wolff has Bay Area media eating out of his hand. He's skillfully given bits and pieces of his vision, never giving too much away and always leaving the curious (like me) wanting more.

Purdy ends the piece with could be interpreted as a bit of foreshadowing:

"A year from now,'' Wolff says, "I'd like to be deep into the process of getting environmental approvals for a baseball park. And for soccer, I'd like a place we can play for the following season, even if it is just temporary.''

To me that sounds like a Fremont ballpark and Spartan Stadium (temporarily for the Quakes). Even if Ron Dellums' staff starting work on a proposal the minute Ignacio De La Fuente conceded the mayoral election, an EIR/study couldn't get fast-tracked to start in Oakland before the end of 2007.

Estuary plan moves forward

After a long give-and-take process between developer Signature Properties and Oakland-based environmental and affordable housing groups, the long-awaited Estuary (Oak-to-Ninth) development appears to be moving forward. Only a city council vote next Tuesday remains, and once that happens, you can officially cross one more site (one touted by Ignacio De La Fuente last year) off the list.

I was excited by the Estuary site last year as well, at least until I understood the grueling process it took to get to the actual planning of the development. This included passing legislation at the state level to approve of the land sale and numerous hearings with the aforementioned community groups so that they could have a say in the plan. Issues such as the height and placement of buildings as they related to the view from the hills, the amount of public parkland, traffic, and the preservation of historic structures all came into play.

One of the keys to getting this deal done was Signature's willingness to pay for site cleanup. However, they got a huge discount in the land price as a result. The Estuary plan's size makes it a better comparison to a potential Wolff-Fisher development somewhere than anything else in the works in the Bay Area. Compromises were made by all parties to get it done, and it took a long gestation period (ongoing). One neat little concession is that Signature is going to allow around 15% of the housing to be termed low income and senior housing - but it doesn't have to build it all at the Estuary. It could shift some of the units to one of its other Oakland projects, though it would have to build more of them. Considering the prime waterfront location, this shift sounds likely.

Dellums wins outright

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in an election whose winner had a 154-vote margin. Ron Dellums is now Oakland's mayor-elect, and in a press conference at the Oakland City Center Marriott, he continued his message of hope that, unfortunately, lacked much detail. He argued that predecessor Jerry Brown's 10K plan was not enough, and that he wanted to have 100,000 new residents in the downtown area - though he didn't say when. And when I saw that Dellums will create task forces to study a variety of issues, I cringed. For Oakland's sake, I hope Dellums really follows through on his promise to be a galvanizing, uniting force for the city. Talk about public-private partnerships could set off some heated debate, as Oakland residents may not take too kindly to certain types of projects - of which a ballpark and ancillary development may be one. Note: An A's development simply won't be about throwing some land at Lew Wolff. Wolff has set the price that he's willing to pay for land - around 25 cents on the dollar. The question is, "Is this doable in Oakland?"

Dellums' speech apparently contained nothing about the local sports franchises, so it's hard to say where he's leaning. In the end, the A's future in Oakland may well depend upon whether or not Dellums believes Wolff/Fisher want to keep the team there. Hopefully, Dellums will recognize how much pride the team brings to the city, and that the team is worth the mayor-elect trying to "break his pick" to keep the team in Oakland.

OUSD site finds a developer

Oakland Unified School District is on its way back to being on its own feet, with labor issues put to bed and money that will come in from the sale of OUSD's 8.25-acre mini-campus near Lake Merritt. According to new reports, a partnership of East Coast firms Terramark and Urban America have put together the winning bid on the property. They intend to build a mixed-use development containing 1,000 housing units and commercial space. The district needs to pay off an emergency $100 million loan the state lent a few years ago, so it's likely much of the sale price will go towards that debt. The price of the land is expected to be between $55 million and $70 million.

OUSD had originally intended to share the space with the eventual developer, but it now appears that will not be the case. At the bottom of the district's memo (first link above) is a mention of moving into or building new facilities somewhere, including downtown Oakland. Unclear is the fate of the five (mostly small) schools residing on the campus, though the memo states that La Escuelita Elementary will be kept in the area.

Long-time readers may remember that over a year ago, I declared the OUSD site unsuitable for a ballpark due to its size and unusual "J" shape. So it's not as if there were some major opportunity to build a stadium on the OUSD site. The link is more tangential - it's less one prime site on which a decent-sized "village" concept could be built, even if it weren't co-located with a ballpark And if you're looking to get something like that done in Oakland, you'll need to assemble some decent, easy-to-acquire land to make it happen.

---

One other thing - thanks to those who have been responding with the latest news on the Oakland mayoral race. It looks like the final tally won't be out until the end of the week, and so far everything points to a runoff in November. That could reduce a key advantage Oakland would've had even though Dellums couldn't take office until January. Now he'll have to throw considerable resources into a fall campaign instead of lining up a transition staff well in advance. However, we should still remember that as important as this political jostling is, it doesn't supplant the two most important factors: Is there a good site? and Who pays for it? Everything else, including transportation concerns, pales next to those questions.

The New Landscape

While the A's ballpark future was not resolved coming out of Tuesday's primary, changes occurred that surely will affect future efforts by cities to attract the A's. At the end of the day, the lesson to be repeated ad nauseum was: Don't pin your hopes on an election.

• As expected, Ron Dellums was elected mayor of Oakland with a majority, thereby avoiding a runoff. While he won't take office until January, don't be surprised to hear rumblings about his well-heeled supporters and associates working on big-ticket projects. Dellums has friends in both city and county government. What's not known is how nice Dellums will play with State Senator Don Perata's minions. Current mayor Jerry Brown always had an uneasy alliance of convenience with Perata that at times strained under both pols' visible agendas. That, and the reality of dealing with dirty, day-to-day business as a mayor in Oakland, will prove whether Dellums' vision for Oakland can translate into real action. As an outsider, I'd like to believe Dellums could really foster the city's growth, but he's going to have to make some very tough decisions about issues like police staffing and presence, affordable housing, big box retail, redevelopment of industrial areas, and the changing demographics of the city. In other words, I'm glad I don't have that job.
• In San Jose, the ballpark effort was dealt an enormous blow with county voters' rejection of the overly broad Measure A. That's not to say that BART-to-San Jose would have been some great problem solver (the difference between opening day at a ballpark and the BART launch would have been several years), but it would have at least provided some relief along the 880 corridor. BART proponents now have to seriously think about either pulling back the cost of the $4.7 billion project or even scrapping it completely. There's talk of limiting BART to only Milpitas or Santa Clara, which could cut the extension's cost in half or more. However, that would limit the project's scope, reduce ridership projections, and force VTA to come up with a completely new justification for the extension. I'd be more optimistic about SJ's chances if the High Speed Rail initiative had any momentum behind it, but it's headed for a November election with scant support while competing with the governor's and legislature's other bond initiatives.
• Fremont will be affected if BART-to-San Jose is either dropped or delayed. A note on the WSX extension page has the service starting to run in 2012 or 2013, which could be within a year or two of a ballpark opening. If the WSX extension doesn't happen and the ballpark does, there will be a real infrastructural issue for Fremont's government and citizens to consider. There is no direct, one-road route between the Pacific Commons site and Fremont BART, and the main arteries running in the area (Stevenson Blvd, Mowry Ave, Fremont Blvd, Paseo Padre Pkwy) could be severely impacted by increased bus traffic - that is, if fans choose to transfer between the BART station and Pacific Commons using a bus. For now, let's dismiss a rail or trolley-based option due to cost. How much will infrastructure such as transportation and increased police cost in the end? How big of a price is Fremont willing to pay to get on the map?

Think of how all of that comes into play in the A's ownership's decision making process. So many variables and dependencies make it difficult to valuate a potential site. The natural tendency is to move in the direction with the least resistance. That appears to be Fremont at this point, but as the Fremont plan gets fleshed out and citizens are better educated about the issues, it could become contentious. Then again, maybe not. No matter where I am (this week I'm overseas), expect comprehensive coverage here. And thanks to all of you who have written in with your support.

Primary returns

So far, we're seeing resounding defeats for initiatives and candidates for the pro-San Jose and pro-Fremont groups, while Oakland appears to have a definitive winner (which may or may not portend well for future ballpark efforts):

• Oakland mayoral race (99% of precincts reporting): Dellums - 50.2%, De La Fuente - 33%, Nadel - 13%.
  This race has been changing overnight. Dellums started out in the lead, but had 44% of the vote - well below the simple majority needed to avoid a runoff. Now, with virtually all but the absentee vote counted, Dellums may avoid the runoff after all. Rumors have swirled around a group close to Dellums working up a proposal for the A's to consider should Dellums win the primary in this manner. How far is Dellums willing to go to keep the A's? On the flipside, does he believe the A's want to stay?
  
• San Jose mayoral race (100% of precincts reporting): Reed - 28.3%, Chavez - 23.5%, Pandori - 17.9%, Cortese - 16.4%, Mulcahy - 10.8%.
  Reed is known as the fiscally responsible Democrat and should not be expected to support any kind of major subsidy to a sports franchise. He has supported the ballpark study and the Diridon South site acquisition, but he won't blindly support a bad ballpark deal. Chavez is considered more friendly towards the prospects of the A's and Quakes, though with "sunshine" reform being proposed, she shouldn't be expected to rubber stamp a bad deal either, mystery of the Quakes subsidy in December notwithstanding.
• Santa Clara County Measure A [1/2-cent general sales tax increase for health care facilities, transportation including BART] (99% of precincts reporting): Yes - 42.3%, No - 57.7%.
  Without the sales tax hike, BART extensions to both Warm Springs/South Fremont and San Jose would be doomed for the forseeable future, especially since the projects did not previously qualify for federal matching funds. Without BART to either Warm Springs or San Jose, arguments in favor of ballpark proposals in those areas would become significantly weaker.
  

The upshot: Oakland, which only a month ago appeared to be almost resigned to losing the A's, finds itself in a much better position because it has a clear winner. This is especially true if Dellums and his team can get a ballpark-based urban renewal proposal going and if Wolff is willing to talk. Even more interesting is what approach Dellums will take becoming mayor, especially because he's not known as a "small details" kind of pol that being a mayor usually calls for. How will he work with City Council Pres De La Fuente (who'll maintain his old job) and the rest of the ever-present Perata machine? What staff changes will he make when he takes office? Will he look to exert pressure on joint-powers groups such as the Coliseum Authority?

Those hidden ballpark costs

If you've ever been to a major sporting event in the Bay Area in the last several years, you'll have noticed in most cases a sizable police presence. This is true regardless of the size or reputation of the venue. Police and traffic control are costs either borne by teams, municipalities, or a combination of both.

It's also not a surprise that like many other cities in California, Fremont is in a serious budget crunch. In Chris De Benedetti's recent article, Fremont City Manager has flatly stated that the city is in no position to fund additional infrastructure for a ballpark/ballpark village. So who would pay for this infrastructure if the deal were to go through? Don't discount the idea that in bringing the A's in, city leaders are pushing Fremont residents to rethink current infrastructure-caused service blows, such as the burglar alarm policy.

---

One more thing - Tuesday's election day! It could be potentially very important for the A's future.

Hope runs academic in San Jose

To my surprise, last night's San Jose Ballpark Economic Study session was not the eye-rolling extravaganza that I had expected. The city has, in fact, clearly decided to work with a consulting firm that isn't usually involved with sports franchises or the sports industry. That firm, bae, specializes in infill-type development such as TOD (transit-oriented development) and military base reuse (they've worked on both Alameda NAS and the Oakland Army Base).

The refreshing thing about the methodology that will be used is that the public isn't going to hear grandiose proclamations about "5,000 jobs" or economic revitalization because, in fact, we all know better. Focus will be largely on displacement of existing businesses, effects on surrounding neighborhoods, opportunity costs - topics that can't be easily summed up in a short press release. Ironically, the city's decision to move towards a spin-free study is symptomatic of the flagging fortunes of the Baseball-in-San Jose effort - if things were moving along more positively, the city might have had more motivation to push for a "positive" study instead of a "neutral" one.

Crowd turnout at the meeting was also a good indicator of the city's direction. The prospects of a soccer stadium were repeatedly brought up, despite the fact that no soccer booster groups such as SSV were present. Inquiries came up frequently enough that it appears the effects of a soccer stadium (which has a different business model) could take up a decent portion of the document. (The study's being paid for, might as well cover all contingencies, right?) For those readers out there that are soccer partisans, be forewarned: the neighborhood associations are smart and resourceful. Approaching a stadium proposal in the wrong manner (without vetting it through the NA's) is one sure step towards failure. That said, in the past SSV has been much better than the city at outreach efforts in the neighborhoods.

The hope here is that when the study is finally published (with proper amounts of feedback framing the discussion), we may finally have a locally produced and focused document that can't be written off as a simple propaganda piece. It could prove beneficial for future discussions about stadia and neighborhoods.