Niners and Raiders sittin' in a tree

Could it be a marriage made in heaven? Or at least Santa Clara?

Matier and Ross revealed in this morning's column that 49er officials met with their Raider counterparts "in a casual setting in the latter half of the football season about the possibility of teaming up." Later in the afternoon, the 49ers issued a release denying such talks occurred. The idea of the two NFL franchises sharing a stadium has been floated here and elsewhere. Is it feasible?

The concept (if not the location) may be the most feasible for this area. The NYC market can only get one stadium built for its two megabucks teams. Despite decades of fierce loyalty, the Redskins' FedEx Field was privately built, while built-up longing and disappointment helped broker a sweetheart deal for the Ravens. We know that public money is scarce at best for the 49ers and Raiders, as is land. So the better question may be:

Why are they pursuing separate venues?

Just as with the A's situation, I'm not terribly particular about the eventual location of a stadium. The 49ers have been pumping up the Great America site, which sounds good on paper. It has transit links, plenty of parking nearby, and some land nearby which could be leveraged for development-based financing. Yet the 49ers' apparent overtures towards the Raiders indicates that the financing part is far from complete. I've expressed my doubts about how the team is going to pay for this.

From a practical standpoint, sharing a venue makes a lot of sense.

• The two teams will play 20-24 games total per year including playoffs.
  
• The exposure that having two teams will bring to the venue makes naming rights much more attractive for potential bidders - perhaps twice as lucrative.
• Having a single venue means that the two teams won't be competing for a Super Bowl bid. They can throw their resources into co-hosting the bid, collectively getting better chances in the process even for repeat hostings.
• The host city will be that much more interested in "helping" because of the promise of twice as many NFL dates.
• Success with the venue would cascade down to the possibility of a high profile bowl game (yes I'm pointing at you, Emerald Bowl).
  

Of course, pragmatism often doesn't rule such proceedings. Greed does. Still, this is a positive step that shows that 49ers management may have a better read on the market than most of the public gives them credit for. As for the Raiders, they understand that compared to a decade ago, they are in a position of weakness on and off the field. They're now beggars, not choosers, so a lack of options could very well drive them towards this kind of deal. Will the fans of the respective teams stand for it? Sounds like a tougher bargain to me.

BTW - I know I'm going to get asked this - I'd prefer Treasure Island even though it's a logistical nightmare (BART station at Yerba Buena Island included). Then one of the cities - take your pick.

What is infrastructure, anyway?

In the past month we've heard a lot about costs associated with the ballpark village. The $500 million figure for the ballpark itself is quite fuzzy, and depending on the final scope of "A's Town" the final value of the project could be well over $2 billion. It could be very easy to lose sight of the hidden costs of the development. There's much speculation about who is going to foot these hidden costs, but I sense that much of this speculation comes from good old-fashioned FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). That's not unfair since we've seen municipalities get burned time and time again over the last 20-30 years on sports facility development. In this case there's less chance of that because a project of this size has to have all details fleshed out before it gets approved. Why? Because if you take away the ballpark, it's simply a housing and retail development, and as such it should get treated like any other housing and retail development.

Don't let the ballpark fool you
The ballpark is the anchor of the development, and it's expected to retain virtually all of its revenue including concessions and parking. Unlike most retail anchors such as department stores, it's not expected to directly benefit the city through significant sales or property tax revenues. That may vary based on who owns the ballpark and land, but for now let's work with the notion that when it comes to sales and property taxes the ballpark represents zero direct net benefit to the City and County. (Ancillary development may brings huge tax revenue for both the City and County but it's too early to project how much.)

Okay, but what about costs associated with the ballpark? Wolff said last week that the A's will pick up the tab for police presence. Is that simply police within the ballpark village area or the ballpark itself? What about traffic management? Or how about public safety at whatever transportation facilities are built there? Fire and emergency services? All of that stuff adds up. It's possible that the A's could capture those costs in their ticket and concessions prices. They could partner with the city on a ticket tax to fund such services, which would be a roundabout way of doing it.

Or they could look at another source of tax revenue within the city itself. Section 5-1206 of the Fremont municipal code covers revenues from recreation and entertainment:

(a) Every person conducting, carrying on or managing any business consisting of entertainment, recreation or amusement shall pay an annual business tax of $1.50 for each $1,000.00 of gross receipts. This classification includes but is not limited to: Archery ranges/instruction, bowling alleys, firearm shooting ranges, golf courses/instruction, ranges, indoor and outdoor motion picture theaters, pool and billiard halls, rental animals for recreation riding, skating rinks, sporting events, swimming pools, theaters at which live entertainment is presented, vehicle courses/racing, game or computing arcades.

That means the tax rate for the A's would be 0.15% in Fremont. That's favorable compared to Oakland's 0.45%, though I don't know whether or not the A's actually pay this tax in their current situation. 0.15% may not sound like much, but when talking about a baseball team, it's actually good revenue. Consider this breakdown:

If Fremont and the A's were to split the cost of gameday police and emergency services, that $171,120 would go along way towards paying for it. Keep in mind that this is tax revenue that would otherwise not go to Fremont. If there's a possible source for these expenses or even a rebate for the A's, this is it.

Permanent infrastructure
There are other types of infrastructure associated with residential or mixed developments. Roads, schools, and parks have great upfront costs, but are ongoing expenses usually covered by existing budgets. In Fremont, the city has had to cut some services and eliminate positions to keep the budget balanced. "A's Town" would bring some nearly 8-10,000 new residents into the city via townhomes and other types of attached housing. Typical residential and commercial developments these days require developers to foot the bill for water, sewer, and other utilities, as well as building of streets within the development. That cost should not be an issue. It's the other stuff that needs to be defined.

Arterial roads and freeways
Two major roads feed into the Pacific Commons area, Auto Mall Parkway from the east, and Cushing Parkway/Boyce Road from the north/south. A major piece of infrastructure was completed a couple of years ago when Cushing Pkwy was extended north from Fremont Blvd, officially connecting the two parts of Fremont's Industrial Redevelopment district. Prior to this, drivers had to take 880 or cross the freeway to get to Auto Mall Pkwy. Cushing is perfect for ballpark traffic as it runs 4-6 lanes and empties directly into 880 South. Auto Mall Pkwy is modern and wide in the Pacific Commons area, but it narrows as you move further east towards 680. It's this portion of Auto Mall that is a concern because it performs double-duty as a commuter corridor. Widening to a full six lanes from 880 to 680 is imperative, and that includes an overpass section that avoids rail lines, including the planned BART extension. Should that widening happen, Auto Mall may be used as a carpool route, which would be helpful for fans coming from 680.

Modern interchanges connecting to 880 in the area are already complete. Pacific Commons is in the middle of a massive redevelopment zone called "Industrial." After the creation of the 3,000-acre zone west of 880, roughly $24 million per year in property taxes was diverted away from their usual destinations, in part, to fund four 880 interchanges: Auto Mall, Fremont, Mission/Warren, and Dixon Landing. All but Mission/Warren are finished, and the Mission/Warren interchange is due sometime in 2008. Debt service on the bonds used to finance the interchanges will run through 2013. Even if the A's were to reverse position and ask for a bond issue - which they haven't - the city would likely be averse to acquiring more short-term debt.

In a previous comment thread, someone asked if perhaps the CHP weigh stations could somehow be used to route traffic coming from 880. That isn't likely with the east side station since it's frequently used and houses other facilities. The station on the west side of 880 (South) is intriguing since it isn't used much at all and is strategically placed adjacent to Pacific Commons. If the developer, city, and state could come to an agreement, it's possible that the station's entrance and exit could be utilized. That would mitigate much traffic that would normally use the Auto Mall exit. The challenges here are A) whether it's actually possible to use a weigh station in this manner, and B) if Wolff can acquire the private parcel needed to complete the road that would run between the weigh station and Christy Street. I doubt a purchase of just the required easement would be feasible, since it would significantly reduce the existing facility's parking. Then again, who knows? The road would only be 600 feet long and covers 1/2 acre.

Parks
The municipal code dictates that for every 1,000 residents, five acres of parkland should be set aside. Using the projected additional population of 8-10,000, that means 40-50 new acres of parks. The developer could pay a "park land dedication fee" in lieu of some amount of land, but good parks tend to raise the value of surrounding neighborhoods, so we should expect some modicum of parkland. It's possible that the developer would dedicate adjacent parcels to the city and Fremont Unified School District to create a shared school/park facility.

Coincidentally, the city owns 40 acres at the west end of Auto Mall, part of it to be used for the ACE/Amtrak station. It's land Wolff covets for parking - and if parking is in its future, a public park isn't. Perhaps a trade is in order...

Schools
The nearest public elementary school is across 880 from Pacific Commons, which makes sense since there is no residential development currently at Pacific Commons. Introducing 8-10,000 new residents means that at the very least a new elementary school is in order. Junior and Senior High Schools are at least 1.5 miles away. Again, the developer will be asked to dedicate land for the construction of a school, some 5-15 acres.

Fire/Hospital
A fairly new fire station is located at Auto Mall and Grimmer Blvd, just across the freeway from Pacific Commons. The hospitals in the area are located closer to city hall and the BART station. No change likely here.

Transportation
This issue is the big elephant in the room. It's worthy of a series of posts to cover potential solutions, so I won't cover that right now. Soon, very soon.

---

When look at infrastructure, it's important to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sure, there are many details, but many of them are either already addressed (roads) or will be addressed within the auspices of the project's master plan (utilities). While it's easy to be overwhelmed by all of the information that must be studied, once residents get a real visual of the concept it will be easier to appraise. Until then, I'll keep doing whatever I can to help shed light on the process.

Down on BART, Up on Silicon Valley

Don't say you didn't see this coming.

At a luncheon in San Jose sponsored by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Lew Wolff downplayed the importance of BART when he said,

"If BART was as effective as we thought they would be, the parking lots wouldn't be as crowded.''

At face value it's pretty poor logic. There are numerous reasons people might drive as opposed to taking mass transit: tailgating, cost when a party of five or more is attending, or convenience coupled with location (usually a dislike of mode switches or transfers). The oft-cited 15-20% of attendees using BART is a good percentage compared to NYC, where 13-30% of fans take trains to either Shea or Yankee Stadium.

Wolff could be referring to how BART doesn't service all of the Bay Area. Livermore residents have long complained about being promised BART in previous expansion efforts. Or maybe it's a veiled shot at the various Bay Area bureaucrats who chose not to include Santa Clara County in the original system layout. Whatever the case, he's chosen to marginalize the effect BART has on attendance. After all, 80-85% currently arrive by car. Ample parking is a factor for getting fans to stay at the revenue-generating ballpark village, while finite mass transit schedules tend to make such a notion less palatable.

In the end this is largely a business decision. The developers can't afford to base their decision much on a much-delayed transit project whose future is in doubt. If you think it's cold and insensitive, you're right. I don't doubt that Wolff would welcome the BART option with open arms if it were beyond the planning stage, but as part of the compromise plan that Pacific Commons is, he (and the rest of us) will have to make do.

---

Not to be missed from the same article is this excerpt:

Wolff pitched the A's as a future economic pillar of Silicon Valley.

The team, he said, would "add value to the economic base and further identify Silicon Valley as a specific place to be instead of having people believe it's in downtown San Francisco.''

You can see where this is leading. An anecdote: one of my new Aussie friends is in town this week. After showing him the sights in SF last weekend, we'll run around the valley tomorrow. I drove to a point in South Fremont to give him the lay of the land. I found myself having difficulty explaining the geography of the Silicon Valley, whose edges are blurry and whose shape is amorphous. San Jose proclaims itself as the capital. Both Sunnyvale and Santa Clara lay claim to the "heart." It may be that this fragmentation forever prevents the definition of a center, whose criteria may be arbitrary. But Wolff is also right about Silicon Valley's lack of definition. "Silicon Valley Athletics at Fremont" would go a long way towards creating that sense of place. Many companies in the valley consider themselves more "citizens-of the-world" and are not locally focused.

Wait, there's more.

Wolff downplayed the importance of mining Silicon Valley companies to buy up season tickets at the planned 32,000-seat stadium. He said the team wouldn't be dependent on luxury boxes and would still rely on drawing kids and families.

"We weren't soliciting box seats or anything like that today,'' Wolff said after the meeting.

The team had a special pitch for business leaders who happen to be A's fans.

Of course they weren't soliciting box seats. They don't need to. SVLG is a readily available marketing and sales machine for the A's. I've heard that luxury suites are already largely spoken for. The 4- or 6-person suite concept seems perfect for that "special pitch" to smaller firms. That could in turn open prime seats up for families and hard-core fans (if they can afford the seats).

Giants say "Top that!"

Not to be outdone in the technology department, the Giants have fired a preemptive shot across the Cisco/A's bow Tuesday, when they announced the construction of a new high definition video/scoreboard. The Mitsubishi-made, 28-ton behemoth will replace the old monochrome scoreboard and Panasonic video board combo in centerfield. They're also adding 220 feet of color LED matrix boards to replace the old monochrome "in-game" boards down each base line, along the club level.

Some specs on the new scoreboard:

• 103 feet wide x 31.5 feet high (3245 square feet)
  
• 32:9 aspect ratio (double-wide HD)
• 1480 x 832 resolution above the line score (128 pixels high)
• 20 mm physical pixel pitch
  

It's not as large as the board installed at Turner Field in 2005 (5760 square feet), but it's still impressive. It's wide enough to put two HD feeds side-by-side. Or show Ben-Hur without letterboxing stripes at the top and bottom of the screen (2.76:1 aspect ratio). The display promises to be amazingly sharp. I suppose that will help the Giants' increasingly geriatric lineup check out their highlights. Or at the very least they could show a neat widescreen video of how Barry Zito's curveball travels.

How can the Cisco/A's match this? 1080p, baby.

---

It looks like the "A's real estate investment trust" is closing in on the important 25-acre parcel (blue rectangle in middle of pic below)

Total holdings could grow to 200 acres or more when all is said and done - about the size of CSU-East Bay.

---

During a Wednesday conference call, Wolff hinted that the financing mechanism could involve rebates of taxes associated with the ballpark village. Is that simply a repackaging of a tax increment financing (TIF) or PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) plan? We'll soon find out.

Playing the waiting game

Well, if you were expecting anything significant from tonight's session, you probably came away disappointed. Lew didn't give details. There were no fire-breathing opponents. And while the chambers was packed, the tone was predictably civil, if not downright subdued. Press coverage: Merc / Argus / Chron

Still, there were some important things to come out of Wolff's brief presentation and Q&A:

• The team name will be "____ Athletics at Fremont" - not "of Fremont." Does that make a difference? Should someone actually take the name literally, it would appear that the team doesn't "belong" to Fremont, even though it's part of the community. Feeling marginalized yet? Or dizzy? This leads me to believe that a regional name is seriously under consideration.
  
• 2,900 housing units is the current number, but more interesting is that Wolff indicated that most of the housing would not be mid-rise condos, but rather townhouses. Townhouses could be worth more on average than a typical mid-rise condo unit, but they'll take up far more room in the project area, and as noted before, space is at a premium.
• The A's are underwriting the $500,000 cost of the EIR and related studies, though the city is contracting all of the work. Wolff apparently has anticipated the instant calls of conflict-of-interest problems by vaguely referring to one study as not as favorable as might be believed. On a related note, I recognized one of the consultants from San Jose's ballpark study work. The consultants were not introduced because, as Wolff said in jest, he couldn't remember all of their names.
  
• City Manager Fred Diaz recommended a letter of interest, similar to one drawn up between the 49ers and the City of Santa Clara.
  
• There were sentiments by both Wolff and council members to accelerate the process, tempered by comments from the public and environmental groups to keep the parties moving on a thorough EIR study.
• Bo Magnussen of Magnussen Lexus inquired about the impact to the Fremont Auto Mall nearby. He had contacted someone at Coliseum Lexus in Oakland to see how much sporting events impacted their dealership. The traffic generated on event days was in fact detrimental, so Magnussen pleaded with the A's and the city to figure out a way to mitigate that impact on weekends. The obvious way at first would be to have Saturday games at 7 p.m. instead of 1 p.m.
  
• There will be many community meetings, but none have been scheduled yet.

A positive I saw was that there were several supporters whose origins/nationalities did not fall into the typical baseball fan profile. One even mentioned the use of the ballpark as an occasional cricket ground (!). Fremont is a city whose population is now just under 50% Asian, so demographics may be a factor when it comes to public support.

There was a small contingent of "Keep the A's in Oakland" folks, but if they had filled out comment cards, they weren't called up.

Fremont City Council meeting on Tuesday

According to the posted agenda, the ballpark presentation is the only item planned for discussion. Note the approximate time shown for the presentation: 5:30-6:45 p.m.

JANUARY 16, 2007

AGENDA

FREMONT CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AND WORK SESSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3300 CAPITOL AVENUE, FREMONT
5:30 P.M. (Please Note Time Change)

1. PRELIMINARY
1.1 Call to Order
1.2 Salute to the Flag
1.3 Roll Call
1.4 Announcements by Mayor / City Manager
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
[Any person desiring to speak on a matter which is not scheduled on this agenda may do so. The California Government Code prohibits the City Council from taking any immediate action on an item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the item meets stringent statutory requirements. The Mayor will limit the length of presentations (see instructions on speaker card) and each speaker may only speak once on each agenda item.]

Times Are Approximate

3. PRESENTATION OF BALLPARK VILLAGE CONCEPT 5:30-6:45 p.m.

Public Comment

4. ADJOURNMENT

The acquisition of an 18-acre office park across the street from Pacific Commons swells the A's holdings there to 170 acres or more. Perhaps they'll redevelop. Perhaps not. I hope they fold that property into the presentation, so that we get an idea of what the "complete" vision looks like.

Excerpts from Wolff on Ronn Owens show

Before I forget, Chris De Benedetti's Argus article on Lew's meeting with Fremont is worth a read.

I didn't transcribe everything from the hour, but there were some choice exchanges. Here are a few:

Wolff: We're going to do the smallest ballpark in Major League Baseball.
Owens: Which is how many people?
Wolff: About 32,000 people
Owens: That is small.
Wolff: Very intimate, but when you look at the displacement of all the other teams, something like 25 teams could live with 30-35,000 seats.
Owens: ... if you want to sign the top people, you gotta make the big money. Are you going to be able to make that kind of money with a 32,000-seat stadium?
Wolff: With a new facility, whether it's 32 or 42 (thousand), we will increase our low net profit two or three times.

A caller asked about the ballpark shuttle:

Wolff: As far as the traffic issue - which everyone seems to have an opinion on before they've heard the plan we have - we are working to have a multi-modal system of both getting closer to BART in the Fremont area but there are other forms of transportation we are working on. It's a whole package that will be presented first to the city before we announce it on the Ronn Owens show.

Another caller called into question Wolff's sincerity about his motivation for wanting a ballpark, citing the A's excellent business model as a reason to keep the status quo. Wolff's response:

Wolff: In the year 2000 the Giants opened their new ballpark. In the six years prior to that time our attendance and the Giants' were within 0.5 million of each other. From that time and through 2006 the Giants are attracting 1.5 million more than we are... during that period we've won more games and been in more postseason play, so...
Owens: Obviously the ballpark.
Wolff: Right. The ballpark is a factor, a big factor, and we need a new ballpark. The answer is, we've been competitive because we have brilliant people that are getting a lot of players but we lose them because the team can't support that activity. Now everyone has a different opinion on that, but that's a fact. I think that the ballpark is 40 years old. We share it with the football team. It's not easy. And if you don't see that, I can't convince you.

When asked about territorial rights:

Wolff: We didn't have a lot of negotiations because the Giants feel (Santa Clara County) is their territory. It wasn't a matter of money... Statistically and socratically, we could make a good case that SCC should be our territory, but that issue is one I've stopped fighting on because both on the league level, and the Giants have preferred to keep their territory.

And here's the debate between Wolff and Bill, a definite opponent of the ballpark:

Bill: Listen, Mr. Wolff. I don't know who you've been talking to with the city of Fremont. My name is Bill, and we've formed a committee to stop the Oakland A's from coming there... The citizens of Fremont don't want the traffic, don't want the crime. I don't know what the city is telling you, but we can't even keep fire stations open in this town. And you're going to have a complex that will bring, on a good weekend, 40-50,000 people in an area that's not equipped to handle it. And I'm not alone in the city. There are a lot of people that do not want the Oakland A's in the city of Fremont.
Wolff: ... If we can provide answers that can make you more comfortable, we hope we can win you over. If we can't we won't -
Bill: Well, I'm gonna tell you - there's probably about 70 or 80% of people in this town that do not want you... This city is not equipped to handle you. We have eight police officers on the street in the evening... There's gonna be a whole lot of problems associated with a sports complex and a village over there.
Owens: What about the fact that they would bring in revenue to the city, which would enable them to hire more, wouldn't that be a factor also?
Bill: No, because the city is not equipped. The city doesn't have the resources. We don't have the fire engines. We don't have the police department. We don't have the ability to handle that crime that gonna be here.
Wolff: Each and every one of your comments - we have room to discuss and give you our answers -
Bill: Unless you want to float the money... the city tried to pass a utility tax twice because they don't have the resources to handle the police department, the fire department, the traffic, etc. -
Wolff: Number one - we're not asking for any taxes to be levied on anybody. The generation of what we do at the village, if - and it is a low density urban village - if it's something the community wants - will generate its own revenue to pay for schools, taxes... We're gonna try to go through a process to answer the very valid questions you're asking. We think baseball is a very clean, healthy, family sport. We have very few incidents or problems where we play today, and we'll have less in Fremont.
Bill: First of all the crime rate in Fremont is rising. You need to look at the statistics. Number two, if you put this on a ballot now, the city won't even let this go to a ballot measure because they know it's going to go down to defeat.
Owens: It's interesting, because that's what I was going to ask. I would have to presume that before you even propose a ballpark, you'd have to do some kind of polling to see if the people wanted it there.
Wolff: We're going through a process of determining what we want to put on the land. Right now that land could be developed with about 3.5 million square feet of office space. Just the same problems (Bill) is talking about could be generated even worse by that.

Wolff went on to say that the A's haven't done a survey, but they have gotten numerous positive phone calls regarding the project.

---

The "net profit" comment was a bit of a surprise. Here's a quick explanation. Putting an extra 10,000 seats on the ballpark means adding an extra deck. That would cost around $100 million. Over 25 years at 6%, that's around $7 million a year. Divide that figure by $35 per person ($24 per ticket + $11 in concessions), and you need 200,000 extra people per season just to break even on the additional cost associated with the additional seating. That boils down to roughly 2,500 additional attendees per game. Once you get past the 25,000 mark, attendance tends to be marginal. It makes more sense to have additional temporary or portable seating that can be made available for big games.

Lew takes calls

I wasn't able to give Lew's appearance on Ronn Owens' show my full attention, but it sounded like good radio. It even got testy, as Lew got into a heated debate with a Fremont resident about the ballpark village development. Owens played moderator while jabbing Wolff about the "____ A's of/at Fremont" name. I'm blocked from getting the streamed archive at work, but I'll definitely listen to it when I get home and transcribe some of the Q&A.

Until then, comment away!

Lew Wolff on Ronn Owens show Thursday (11 a.m.)

At 11 a.m. on Thursday morning, Lew Wolff will drop by the KGO radio studio to visit with Ronn Owens. He'll probably give a small update on the ballpark. I don't expect much information in terms of the financing plan, but perhaps he'll reveal his vision for the parking/shuttle system. I wonder if they'll take calls as they did the last time. If you can't get the OTA brodcast, stream it here. Wolff's been in the area for a while, because n Tuesday he attended new San Jose mayor Chuck Reed's inauguration.

Speaking of radio, former A's exec Andy Dolich was a guest during KNBR's late morning show on December 26. Ted Robinson was filling in for Gary Radnich that day, and Ted brought out some great stories from Dolich, who currently works as President of Business Operations for the Memphis Grizzlies. When asked about the A's possible move to Fremont, he sounded disappointed, noting that geographically no city is better situated in the Bay Area than Oakland. He also said that various political forces (I'm liberally paraphrasing here) made it difficult for the team to stay in Oakland.

In Las Vegas, Cisco CEO John Chambers' keynote included a demo of next generation networking technologies, which of course included applications for use at Cisco Field. Back in San Jose, Cisco filed a lawsuit against Apple for violating its trademark on the name iPhone. Cisco introduced some VoIP (voice over IP) phones through its Linksys brand in mid-December. Apple, which introduced its version of the iPhone to much hoopla, could be forced to pay some serious coin - at least in a settlement. Ironically, it may be the Apple iPhone's dazzling UI that truly ushers in Cisco's vision of wireless internet ubiquity. Chambers' demos could get kicked up a notch by using an Apple iPhone (this opinion comes from an ardent Blackberry user). So perhaps what Cisco's really interested in is not payola - they might want a discounted license on Apple's technology. It's somewhat analogous to the A's-Giants territorial rights issue.

And now... SB 49

It only took a few weeks, but the details of State Senator Carole Migden's (D-SF) anti-relocation bill, SB 49, have come to light. Text of the bill is available from the Legislature's website in either HTML or PDF. Migden's bill was initially reported as being relevant to NFL teams, but I want to see it first before making any sort of judgment.

As expected, the bill has some rather broad language that makes it appear that it could be applicable to any pro sports franchise. Once you scroll down the page a little, you get to the part that makes it abundantly clear that Migden is referring to an NFL franchise, namely the 49ers.

(5) "Professional sports franchise" means a franchise or other entity operated for the exhibition of National Football League games, and any affiliate organized to develop or operate a sports stadium.

Not sure why Migden simply didn't replace "professional sports franchise" with "National Football League franchise." I doubt NFL commish Roger Goodell and the owners are going to rush to change the league's name in response to the bill. In any case, the A's aren't likely to be affected.

Ironically, passage of SB 49 could prevent the 49ers (and/or the Raiders) from staying in the Bay Area. If enacted, the 49ers would be restricted from moving to Santa Clara. That would force the team (barring appeals, of course) to deal with San Francisco, but if a deal fell through there, the team would be forced to look outside the Bay Area altogether. Even Sacramento, which is 90 miles away from SF, would be out of bounds. Los Angeles, however, wouldn't. Should the bill pass, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising to see a great deal of support coming from Southern California. Ouch.

SB 49 will probably face revision as it runs through committee. We'll see if it stays intact or gets neutered, as SB 4 did in 2005. Who knows, references to the NFL could be removed, or the 100 mile restriction. Should either of those changes occur, owners of all fifteen major sports franchises in California could become seriously interested in the bill.

Note: The San Diego Chargers, who are looking for a new home somewhere in San Diego County, would also be stifled by the bill. They would have the ability to move to Los Angeles - but not Anaheim, which is closer than 100 miles away.

Take the money and run

Have you noticed how most of the free agent contracts inked this offseason have been five years or less? Player age is certainly a factor, but equally important is the fact that the new CBA runs five years, through the end of the 2011 season. Although it's unlikely that the MLB's current business model will collapse, there's no telling if certain issues such as a salary cap could rear their head. No owner wants bad contracts grandfathered into the next CBA, so the Soriano and Zito signings are the exception.

As far as that business model goes, let's just say that no one's complaining. Take a look at the table below, which shows various types broadcast and internet revenue.

Every team can count on $30+ million every season without selling a single ticket or TV ad. That's good money. This doesn't even include revenue derived from Latin American TV contracts or other internet feedsharing agreements. The Extra Innings satellite/cable package pays out $2 million per year to each team as well.

So if you're the Giants, and you rake in upwards of $100 million in gate and concessions revenue, putting together a $95-100 million payroll doesn't sound all that bad even with the mortgage on the ballpark. According to Forbes, the Giants' 2005 revenues were $171 million. We don't have their books in front of us, but by using all of these bits of information and putting them together, we can come to one simple conclusion: The Giants can't cry poor because of the cost of the ballpark. They proved their financial health by heavily outbidding the Mets and Rangers for Barry Zito, and by showing their willingness to outbid the Astros for Carlos Lee.

Signing Zito is also a significant not-so-stealthy PR move. Zito was already a darling among local media, and the 7 or 8-year deal means that as long as he isn't traded (he has a no-trade clause), he'll still be there when the A's new ballpark opens. In the meantime, many A's fans will have watched Zito continue to pitch on the other side of the bay - either in person or on KTVU/FSNBA - which means more revenue for los Gigantes. If you're the A's, all you can do is hope the development process speeds up, because when Cisco Field opens up, the playing field in the Bay Area will be pretty close to even.

Mark it down: January 16

The first chance for the public to scrutinize the Cisco Field plan will come on Tuesday, January 16, according to Argus scribe Chris De Benedetti. The meeting will start at 5:30 p.m. instead of the customary 7:00 p.m. No agenda has been posted, and I wouldn't expect one until the week before the meeting. It'll be interesting to see who shows up, especially because the TV cameras will most likely be rolling. Bring your pencils for the comment cards.

Webcast link (live only during session)

49er dilemma

The PR fight between San Francisco and its football team continues with the release of correspondence between the two parties. Mayor Gavin Newsom has reopened the idea of the stadium at Hunters Point Shipyard, an idea that was rejected earlier by the 49ers because of uncertainties regarding cleanup of the seriously toxic Superfund sites there.

The Navy pledged $120 million towards cleanup nearly three years ago. Cleanup is expected to take the better part of a decade to complete, which makes a 2012 opening date for a new stadium rather optimistic - to which 49ers owner John York concurs.

In addition, a new public park and wetlands refuge is being created out of Yosemite Slough, the inlet that separates Hunters Point from Candlestick Point. York points out in his response to Newsom that an engineering firm recommended the construction of a six-lane bridge over the slough to properly route traffic coming from the 101-Candlestick exit. In this Chronicle article, Lennar is supposedly going to pay for infrastructure related to the stadium, but the bridge has to give one pause. At 0.35 miles in length (accordingly to my Google Earth), the bridge would be one-half the length of the new Carquinez Bridge, which was a $200 million project. A direct comparison isn't fair, but size of the new bridge could be $50 million or more. And if they're talking infrastructure, they really should consider a light rail spur from the new T-Third line, since the location would presumably only have bus service under the current plan.

Even with these challenges, a Hunters Point stadium sounds a lot more feasible than a Candlestick Point stadium. I've heard that to facilitate construction under the previous plan, all manner of staging would've occurred on offshore barges. Yikes! The biggest problem now is that the mayor has given the team only until the end of March to review and approve the project. The deadline has already rankled York, and the optimistic schedule pushing such a deadline may be a ploy to save face by presenting a somewhat realistic looking proposal - lest they look like Oakland. Newsom even offered to set aside land for new 49ers training facilities - certainly an arrow across the bow of Santa Clara.

Still nothing was mentioned about how anyone's going to pay for a $800 million stadium.

For selfish A's-related reasons, I'd rather see the 49ers stay in SF. Bringing them down to Santa Clara would create a situation in which three teams would be located in Silicon Valley. The Valley is rich, but how well can it economically support three large teams? I've always considered the Bay Area a fairly fluid place when it comes to consumers looking for entertainment, but when it comes to hard numbers and competition for premium seating, I don't think having three South Bay teams is a favorable situation for the A's, 49ers, and especially the Sharks. Keeping the 49ers in SF would create a better balance, with two in SF, two in Oakland, one in SJ, and one straddling the East Bay/South Bay border. It's that kind of geographic distribution that could make it easier on all local major sports franchises.

40 acres and an earthmover

As promised earlier in the week, here are some pictures of the area that includes the 40-acre city land that the A's are seeking for use as a parking facility.

First up is Auto Mall Parkway, which transforms from a six-lane road (at I-880) to a four-lane road...

... which then turns into a three-lane road...

... and finally a two-lane road with soft shoulders...

... before finally ending at the landfill.

The tracks in the foreground are the Union Pacific line used by both ACE and Capitol Corridor. Once you cross those tracks and turnaround, you get the view of the 40-acre parcel:

Drive back the other direction, and you see PG&E's Newark Substation and power lines along the eastern edge of the parcel:

These electrical towers are actually situated in a parking lot, which makes the land in the foreground a possible route for a four-lane road, people mover, greenbelt, or all three. Tuesday's post has a map that indicates how the power lines run in relation to the area.

The fact that Auto Mall Parkway shrinks from six to two lanes at its western end makes widening the road imperative. Perhaps the widening only needs to happen to the point in the above picture, but either way, some infrastructure will need to be built to make it viable. Fortunately, the three-lane section has large shoulders that imply that widening could be done with relative ease.

When is BART not BART?

Answer: When it's being pitched by VTA.

The still-languishing BART-to-San Jose project got a bit of a reprieve today, as the VTA board approved $135 million in additional design and engineering costs associated with the project. Dissenting Santa Clara Supervisor Liz Kniss put out a rather pointed question:

"Are we concerned at all about starting BART without knowing where it's going?"

This is extremely important, as it gets to the heart of the matter. There is still uncertainty as to how far BART will travel into Santa Clara County, if at all. There's talk of having BART terminate in Milpitas at the Great Mall, or in San Jose at the old Flea Market, which is 2.5 miles (crow flies) northeast of Downtown San Jose. The mode may not even be BART, as light rail could be used for most of the route up to Warm Springs, where it would meet BART's new southern terminus. The most expensive part of the entire 16.1-mile project is the controversial 4.8 mile downtown subway, which would burrow under the most heavily-used thoroughfare, Santa Clara Street.
There are numerous alternatives in VTA's 2001 MIS Report. In addition to the aforementioned concepts, there are possibilities for enhanced commuter rail along the ACE/Amtrak corridor, a separate busway along the planned BART corridor, or even a strange situation in which BART technology would be used throughout, but users would transfer at Warm Springs to San Jose-bound trains.

Personally, I'm warming up to the idea of light rail coming up from the Valley and meeting BART at Warm Springs. It would capture two-thirds of the projected riders taking the BART alternative, but it would cost less than half as much ($1.5 billion for LRT vs. $3.7 billion for BART in 2001 dollars - now $4.7 billion). There would be dedicated routes from Mountain View and Downtown San Jose, with simple transfers from East and South San Jose, and Campbell. Plus with VTA's fare structure, it'd be quite inexpensive to ride. That's a double-edged sword since it's bad for "farebox recovery" but good for ridership numbers.

If you're from the East Bay, you might be asking how this affects you. It all comes down to feasibility. The rising costs of the BART extension make it more difficult to justify with each passing day. VTA already had to abort an earlier attempt to get federal funding because of insufficient ridership projections, and now there's talk that they're inflating the numbers to make it work. If you're only using BART to go to A's games, all you want is the extension to Warm Springs and a solid transfer method to get you the rest of the way. If you're a commuter, the BART extension isn't a perfect anyway since it sidesteps many of the heavy employment centers in the Golden Triangle and takes a circuitous route to downtown San Jose, likely requiring a transfer in Milpitas.

For those of you in the South Bay, what do you think of a light rail alternative as opposed to BART from San Jose/Milpitas? If you could take a 30-45 minute, $2 ride to Fremont from Mountain View or San Jose and then a short shuttle from there to Cisco Field, would you take that instead of your car?

Fremont-A's negotiations begin in earnest

The Merc's Lisa Fernandez reports that the first of probably many biweekly meetings involving the A's and the City of Fremont was held this morning at Fremont's City Hall. City Manager Fred Diaz said little about the substance of the meetings, describing this first session as an "icebreaker."

There was also no discussion of a Nov. 21 A's letter to Fremont in which team officials offered the possibility of Fremont one day owning the land and stadium, which many see would be a tax break for the team.

This is the first article I've seen that acknowledges the tax break option that the A's are proposing.

Some Fremont details emerge

The Argus's Chris De Benedetti has a story summarizing a letter dated November 21, from Lew Wolff to Fremont City Manager Fred Diaz. It's only two pages, so obviously it's not a proposal, yet there are little bits here and there worthy of further analysis. The letter is PDF (Page 1/Page 2). My comments are in italics.

Project Goals (quoted in its entirety):

It is our desire to create a new home for the Athletics that significantly enhances the quality of life in the surrounding local community as well as the fan experience at the ballpark. Additionally, we seek to have a significant portion of the project funded through the development of the remaining vacant areas surrounding the ballpark. It is our intent to have the majority of this support funded by revenues and resources generated directly from the Ballpark Village development as opposed to receiving substantial direct subsidies outside of the project area (i.e. taxes) typically associated with new ballpark development projects.

Nothing new here.

---

Ballpark Village will contain:

• 32,000-35,000 seat ballpark
• a lifestyle center retail project within a mixed-used development at a level of quality equal to that of the award winning Santana Row project in San Jose
• a residential community with a majority of multi-family units in a pedestrian-friendly village in proximity to the ballpark

This is the first official acknowledgment of the Village's resemblance to Santana Row. The idea that the remaining (majority) housing will be separated from the Ballpark Village is good. If well conceived, it'll provide the convenience that comes with living near an entertainment center, while providing a quiet and safe environment for raising children. That's a pretty tall order.

---

Ballpark:

• Up to $500 million
• In return for successfully completing the Ballpark Village entitlement approach... along with other real estate related financing tools... the Athletics would agree to enter into a long term arrangement (40 years including extensions) for the team to remain in Fremont for the distant future.
• The A's would be responsible for building and running the ballpark, as well as cost overruns.
• No City or County support required beyond the initial project support
• If desired by all parties, the City or its designated public agency designee (think of a JPA like the Coliseum authority) could potentially own the land and the completed ballpark under our proposal.

Remember that if the city owns the land and/or part of the stadium, the A's won't have to pay property taxes on the city-owned piece.

---

40-Acre City Parcel (quoted in its entirety):

"In order to create the pedestrian-oriented Ballpark Village community and avoid having a typical "sea" of surface parking around the proposed ballpark, we would propose to enter into a lease or other arrangement for a portion of the 40-acre City parcel to the west of the Pacific Commons development. The term of this arrangement for the parcel would be equivalent to that of the Athletics' commitment at the ballpark. This parcel and other areas would be included in an integrated transit, traffic, and parking program for the new planned Ballpark Village community."

If you're wondering where this parcel is, take a look at the map below:

The map is based off the original Cisco development plans. Notice how office buildings are concentrated along a street and parking is on the outside towards the wetlands. The parking lots act as a buffer, and as murf mentioned in an earlier comment, a large buffer may be required. It could become a sticking point. The map also shows the planned Capitol Corridor/ACE station to the west of (below) the city parcel.

To make this work, the A's will have to designate some of their project land as parkland. That's going to happen as part of the residential development requirement, so it's potentially a fair trade. The land is not a great place for a park anyway. Why? The landfill is only a few hundred feet away, across the tracks (I'll have pictures tomorrow).

40 acres equals 5,000 parking spaces. Couple that with the parking I've targeted close to 880 and you've got 9,000-10,000 spaces. What will that integrated transit, traffic, and parking program contain?

Newswrap for 12/11

A few worthwhile news items came in over the last week.

Fremont officials and representatives from several public transportation authorities have had three roundtable discussions since August about the challenges presented by the Pacific Commons site. Among the solutions being considered are a system of shuttles, a monorail, or a people mover. I'll present a people mover option later this week.

Meanwhile in San Jose, the city council approved the last $20,000 to be spent on the mostly dead ballpark study to formally complete it. Some of the environmental impact details, especially research into historic buildings in the area, will be useful for the next project that is planned for Diridon South - whether it's a stadium, concert hall, parking lot, housing, or anything else.

Last but not least, the Raiders vs. Oakland saga has finally come to an end for now, with the Raiders choosing not to appeal the outcome of a legal decision that struck down a $34 million award to the Raiders. Chip Johnson's column notes that Al Davis has put a 31% stake (likely non-controlling, of course) in the team on the open market, but so far there are no takers. To get the Coliseum up to the standards of the rest of the league, it will take far more than the $50-100 million or so that could be available from the NFL's G3 loan program ($150 million is available to teams that are building a new stadium from the ground up). Football has only three two-team markets (NYC, Baltimore-Washington, SF-Oakland), and one of them has a shared facility. Is it time to start thinking that way here?

Stern visits Sactown

Now that the Kings' and local Sacramento pols' efforts to build a downtown arena have hit a wall, NBA commish David Stern came to the state capitol to pull a Winston Wolfe. From the Bee article:

Stern arrived in town Monday for a two-day whirlwind schedule of meetings with those in a position to help craft an arena plan, or shed light on why previous efforts have failed.

He said he came with no preconceived notions of what would work, but in meetings Monday he repeatedly brought up the idea of a statewide authority to help finance California sports venues.

Accompanying him was Baltimore sports and entertainment consultant John Moag, who plans to stay in town for at least two weeks to work on the effort.

Moag called the Sacramento arena effort to date "a little rudderless" and said Stern -- who officially represents the Maloof family, which owns the Kings -- will step into the role usually played by a political leader.

Do the words "statewide authority" sound familiar? It should, because it's reminiscent of SB 4, the sports facilities bill penned by State Senator Kevin Murray (D-Culver City). Murray, who's being termed out with November's election, was hired by super agency William Morris in October.

Should a similar bill try to make its way through the legislature, it could face a similar gauntlet to what SB4 faced in committee review. The net effect of this was to neuter SB 4, which eventually died without getting a governor's signature, or even a full Assembly or Senate vote.

It's a good idea to get Stern involved instead of the persona non grata Maloof brothers, but getting public help for the Kings doesn't look anymore promising than it did a year ago. The passage of Propositions 1A-1E puts the state in the hole $37 billion. Why would it be any easier to get public funds now or even in the near future?

And who could be an ally in the legislature? State Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) just introduced SB 49 (cute), which is specifically targeted at Santa Clara's efforts to move the 49ers to the South Bay. Considering the gargantuan amount of infrastructure that would have to be built to make the Candlestick Point/Lennar development plan work, she may be game.

Milpitas wants to know

The site of the future Cisco Field may be in Fremont, but that doesn't mean that only Fremont will be affected. Milpitas officials have expressed their concerns about the project, especially traffic along 880.

During Milpitas City Council's Nov. 21 meeting, Councilman Bob Liven-good expressed his concerns over how the sports complex would impact Milpitas residents, especially along the I-880 corridor.

"It's of concern to me obviously because the site they are focused on... is less than three miles from our city border, and as a result has the potential to be an impact on our roadways and on our quality of life," he said.
Advertisement

Livengood added at this early stage in planning for a stadium, he didn't know "whether to be a cheerleader of the project or a detractor of it."

As I understood it, Fremont was going to get Newark and Union City involved because they'd be impacted, so it makes perfect sense to include Milpitas... and San Jose, whose city limits are also only a few miles from Pacific Commons.

How we got to this point

East Bay Express writers Robert Gammon and Chris Thompson have this week's cover story, a thorough chronology of events over the past several years that led up to the Pacific Commons plan. Even though the full article is available online, I suggest you get a (free) copy wherever you can. I can't comment on all of the workings of the Oakland political machine, but I can say that the Fremont scenario described in the article played out exactly as I heard it nearly a year ago. It's definitely a must-read.

Happy trails, Bud

You could see it on his face. He really didn’t want to be there. As commissioner, Bud Selig’s appearance at the A’s-Cisco announcement was perfunctory. His presence was needed to give the event that extra bit of gravitas, though he certainly didn’t lend a ton of charm to the proceedings. Soon, Bud Selig won’t have to fly cross-country to do these events. It’ll be someone else’s job.

It was thought that Selig would retire by the time his current tenure as commish expires at the end of 2007. Recently, he has given hints that he wants to stay on a little longer. With a new CBA in place and record attendance figures year after year, you’d think that he’d want to go out on top, or at least until he really has to face the steroids demon in earnest.

The only reason Selig would conceivably stay on would be that he thought his job wasn’t finished. That’s hard to believe, since Selig navigated MLB through 3 CBA negotiations, while presiding over the opening of 15 new ballparks (with 5 more on the way), and the expansion of the league by 4 teams. He’s also overseen the introduction of the wildcard, interleague play, and revenue sharing. In Andrew Zimbalist’s book In the Best Interests of Baseball? he refers to Selig as the sport’s first CEO.

It would appear that Selig does have some unfinished business as the game’s CEO. Chief among his concerns has to be the Florida Marlins’ situation. By inserting the league office directly into negotiations with local governments in the Miami area, Selig has bypassed the source of much consternation, Marlins’ ownership. The election of former minor league baseball lawyer, Charlie Crist, to the governorship of Florida has given MLB officials renewed hope for a deal. Kansas City was considered a problem area as well, but in April voters passed a package of renovations for Kauffman Stadium and its neighbor in the Truman Sports Complex, Arrowhead Stadium. The Mets and Yankees have broken ground on their new homes, and the Nats are well along on construction of their new ballpark, even if some of the other details are still being fleshed out. The A's still have a long way to go before groundbreaking, let alone opening day.

So what’s next? National TV deals are set through 2013. Should Florida pan out, there would be one stadium deal nearing expiration: the Angels lease at the Big A. With the home market being LA, it would be in Arte Moreno’s best interest to get something done there, while not completely alienating the existing fanbase. He’s not going to maintain his franchise’s impressive growth in value by moving out of LA.

Perhaps it’s time that MLB truly starts to consider expansion again. Before you start complaining about the watering down of the talent pool, let’s remember that foreign talent has been extremely rich over the last several years and has shown no signs of slowing down, especially in Asia. There will always be marginal players or players of questionable value. Right now, some of them get 5-year, $50 million deals. If you're really concerned about dilution of talent, turn the 25-man roster into a 24-man roster.

There are numerous ways expansion would help:

• Having 32 teams makes realignment and scheduling easy. Again, let’s look to the NFL. They have a symmetrical dream system for scheduling, with even numbers of teams per division and conference. They have a fair number of intraconference and interconference games. Plus they kept great divisional rivalries intact. Take a look at this hypothetical MLB realignment scenario:
  
  
  The four-team division allows for great flexibility. Teams can devote all of April and September to divisional races since an odd fifth team won't be left out. And by instituting the unbalanced-but-fair scenario in green above, every team will be guaranteed an equitable number of series with each intraleague opponent. Sometimes it'll be 6 series (division), 4 series (intraleague "A"), or 2 series (intraleague "B"). No more of that weird home-away-home stuff. The awkwardness that comes from pairing a 4-team division (AL West) with a 6-team division (NL Central) will cease. 2-game series would be mostly limited to divisional play, lessening travel hardships. There are some historical rivalry issues to work out such as Royals-Cards, but that could be accommodated within this revamped framework.
  
• Major league baseball should have a team in a primarily Spanish-speaking market. Options include Monterrey and San Juan, or perhaps Mexico City, Havana (post-communism), or an economically stronger Santo Domingo, DR. Frankly, this is long overdue. It's likely that a team south of the border will require revenue-sharing for its first decade of operation. That's fine. Take part of the expansion franchise fee and put it into a fund for the team. It would be well worth the goodwill it will bring to MLB. The NBA and NFL are aggressively marketing in Asia and Europe. Why should MLB keep neglecting its fertile backyard?
• Increasing the number of jobs could push average salaries downwards. The union will love the increase in ML jobs (50). The owners will automatically have some amount of depression in average pay, since more players will be fighting for a slightly larger salary pie. The NFL’s system works largely because over double the players of MLB yet have only slightly larger annual revenues. There’s little chance that MLB will increase active rosters to more than 25 men. It’s possible that adding two more teams could make teams compete more for that fourth outfielder or starting pitcher, but I’d rather have the market play that out.
• Holding a city for ransom doesn't work. We've seen this already play in Miami, where the city called the team's bluff, knowing how crucial a market it is to MLB. The Marlins remain in South Florida, and with MLB heading the negotiations, a ballpark deal could be made. I personally am not a fan of the public funding being considered, but I don't live in Florida. It's up to Florida residents to decide the merits of the deal. Once ransom is off the table due to zero relocation candidates, then Portland, Las Vegas, and San Antonio can cease being stalking horses. If they're interested, they can bid on the other expansion team. We'll know which city has all of the pieces in place: site, financing, ownership group, economics. All three of those markets are somewhat small right now, but in a decade all three could be excellent medium-sized baseball markets. San Antonio could even be a fallback option if a south-of-the-border city is not feasible.
• It's almost time. Expansion wouldn't occur until well into the next decade, perhaps 2015 or so - after the current stadium boom era has officially come to a close. That's plenty of time between the last round of expansion (1998) and the next. This time, the owners wouldn't be motivated by collusion or legal difficulties. They'd be focused on actually growing the sport. Rather novel idea, no?
  

What do you think about expansion?

No comment necessary

The Loaiza-Kennedy rule of ownership

Today I'll pose a "hypothetical," y'all can debate it.

The A's are buying up land in Fremont. Some of it will be meant for housing, some for parking, some for retail/commercial, some towards the ballpark, the rest for infrastructure. Here's how the ownership situation would look:

• Ballpark: 50% A's, 50% Fremont
• Ballpark land: Fremont (A's would donate land)
• Retail/commercial: A's
• Parking: A's
• Residential: Third-party developers (TBD)
• Infrastructure: Fremont

The infrastructure piece is the obvious no-brainer, the rest are educated guesses. The A's might want the ability to retain as much of the land for future development as possible. That's why parking lots/garages would be owned by the team. The land for residential, along with development rights, would be sold early on to housing developers developers to assist in financing the ballpark. The rights might not be sold all at once because pending construction could create a glut of sorts in the housing market. Chances are that the rights would be sold in phases, which is fine if you're the A's because all you want to do is service annual debt. The rights would be sold well in advance of a 20-30 year term on privately financed stadium bonds, so that money could be used to either pay off the debt early or to be reinvested. Retail/commercial makes sense for the A's to own because they'd rake in nice leases from the various new establishments.

As for the ballpark, that's a less straightforward situation. The immediate response might be, "Doesn't the franchise's value go up if they own the ballpark?" Yes, but it would go up just as much if they didn't own it. All that matters is that the team gets new revenue streams from the stadium. As a bonus, the team would be looked upon more favorably by MLB and financiers if they weren't saddled with major debt, such as a privately-owned ballpark.

There's one more motivation that makes the most sense: Lower property taxes. If the A's owned the ballpark outright, they'd have tax liability over a $400 million building plus some $20-40 million in land. The property tax rate in Alameda County is 1.2%. Look up those timetables, and that comes to $5 million per year, or the '06 salary of Esteban Loaiza. Sure, depreciation would take a bite out of that over time, but even so that's up to $100 million left on the table over the life of the stadium. If the A's are looking to own half of the stadium as outlined above, their property tax hit would be around $2.4 million, or the '06 base salary of Joe Kennedy. (These figures don't include special assessments.)

Then again, look at the A's current situation. They don't pay any property tax on the Coliseum because it's also publicly owned. Since the A's would be moving all of their business ops to somewhere in Fremont, they would be contributing more to the county's coffers than they would in the current lease at the Coliseum. That gain has to be balanced against the hard and soft costs associated with having an entertainment district.

The $64,000 question has to be:

"Is the opportunity cost for getting a baseball team worth it?"

Let's look at alternatives for the land:

• Another office park. That's what was originally planned for the area, though the original tenant, Cisco, nixed those plans long ago. Fremont's legacy position of reserving the area for light industrial and commercial use made sense decades ago from a planning perspective, but now that very little is actually manufactured here compared to the Far East, it's a policy worth revisiting. There are still large swaths of land to the south on Fremont Blvd/Gateway Blvd that are completely undeveloped. Fremont doesn't have the cachet that the Golden Triangle cities - Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View - offer for building large corporate campuses. Warehousing/distribution remains a popular land use in the area, but how much additional land does that industry really need locally to function? And is it a growth industry, especially when land costs continue to rise?
• Another strip mall. That's not likely because existing Fremont shopping centers, Pacific Commons and the Fremont Hub, already cover this market. In fact, there are very few big box retailers that don't occupy either of those two shopping centers. The only one I can think of would be Best Buy, but honestly, aren't there enough Best Buy locations out there? Along Auto Mall/Durham, there's also Fry's, Home Depot, REI, and Wal-Mart. They're pretty well covered.
• Housing instead of the ballpark/ballpark village. This would run counter to Fremont's intentions to keep entertainment dollars within city limits, while adding the need for additional services. Not gonna happen.
• Leave the land undeveloped. Now this is unrealistic. The dirt's already turned over. The wetlands preserve, which is outside the project land, has already been created. Someone's going to do something with the project land, whether it's the A's, Cisco, or ProLogis.

The endgame is that after 30 years, the city will own the stadium outright. Is this a good deal for the city? For the county?

Election in Fremont?, Paying off the SJ Giants

Three articles showed up in today's rags that you should read:

• Chris De Benedetti of The Argus covers the possibility of a ballot measure for Cisco Field and the ballpark village.
• The Merc's Barry Witt writes about Rule 52, also known as the "15 mile rule." Rule 52 prevents a major league team from relocating to within 15 miles of another team without compensation or approval by the affected team.
• Merc writers Mary Anne Ostrom and April Lynch chronicle Lew Wolff's legacy of local development and forays into sports business.
  

Fremont's mayor and city council have been consistent about eschewing a referendum. The likelhood of a vote increases should general fund money be required, but both the A's and Fremont have insisted that pulling from the general fund is not going to happen. Still, there remains a question of how new services for the area will be paid for. A ticket tax? Assessments on the new condos? Tax increment financing? I can't wait for the discussion to begin in earnest.

Rule 52 is not expected to be a major issue, at least with regard to the San Jose Giants. Even if compensation is required, it probably won't be an enormous amount. Perhaps the two sides could do the right thing and put the money towards refurbishing dilapidated San Jose Municipal Stadium. Then again, SJ Giants ownership could take the money and sell/move the team to an area that wants a team and has far less competition: Petaluma or Napa. In the past, I wasn't clear on whether Rule 52 was still applicable, since the Nationals technically set up shop within 15 miles of Orioles' territory by playing in RFK Stadium. We won't know until snippets from the next ML Constitution are released (leaked).

Clear Channel goes private

Radio industry behemoth Clear Channel agreed to a buyout by a group of private equity firms, including Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners. The total value of the buyout is said to be $18.7 billion.

The deal won't directly free up the radio market for the A's to pursue an interest in their own radio station. Clear Channel is divesting itself of its radio properties outside the Top 100 markets in the country, as well as its television stations, which are also in small markets. The closest market where a station could be available? San Luis Obispo. There's a slight possibility that if some of these small market stations were swallowed up by one of Clear Channel's competitors, there could eventually be some tradeout of properties. I'm not holding my breath.

Ballpark Village

There's a very good reason why we haven't heard how much the whole development is going to cost:

We don't know how big it will be.

The orange area represents the Cisco land that will be purchased by the A's. The red area contains land that Wolff has recently acquired (they haven't acquired all of it yet AFAIK). Blue areas are additional land that probably will be acquired. Now take a look at the area with an approximation of the ballpark:

The cryptic message, "9,000 spaces within a comfortable walking distance," means two things:

• They want people to walk through the village to get to the parking garages/lots. There will be garages adjacent to the ballpark, but those will be geared towards VIP's, suite holders, and personnel - 1,200 spaces or so. Everyone else will be walking 1/8 to 1/4 mile.
• They're going to need every square foot they can get. The village will extend into the blue area immediately to the north. That red area, nearly 20 acres, could be very important. So could the old Christy Concrete plant. Combined, they'd provide 31 acres, or around 4,000 spaces. If it's surface parking, perhaps the tailgating tradition will live. If they build garages, tailgating's dead. The blue/red areas by the freeway are the best locations for parking from a development standpoint because of that all-important freeway access and the fact that the location automatically routes fans away from quieter residential neighborhoods to the south.

Village planners will have some challenges ahead of them. Questions to ask include:

• How can housing and the wetland preserve co-exist? It appears that a large buffer will be required between the two, perhaps a couple hundred feet. This could be a good thing, since some amount of open space and parkland will be required. Might as well put them both together by making a greenbelt run along the southern portion of the orange area. The transition between the two areas would be smoother, plus there would be a nice place for families to go outside of the ballpark village core. But would that be enough to ease environmentalist concerns?
• Where will the fire station/police station go? There is a fire station on the other side of I-880 on Grimmer Blvd., so it may not be necessary to have yet another one. Fremont doesn't operate police precinct stations, but considering the likely higher crime rates that will come with a new entertainment district, it makes sense to have some kind of community police center. This plan means 40,000 additional people and 10,000 additional cars coming into the city 81+ times per year plus playoffs and exhibitions, along 5,000+ permanent residents. Fortunately, such a station need not take up much space. As far as actually policing the games, I get the feeling that the Alameda County Sheriff's Department will be tapped for that role.
• What about schools and parks? This is that additional infrastructure piece that is uncertain regarding funding. Lew Wolff's admission on Tuesday that the team's new name will have "of Fremont" is a big deal from a political perspective. It's a bargaining chip. How much value it actually has is up for debate, but it's Wolff saying that if Fremont wants the publicity that comes with being part of the team's name, it should contribute something other than simply pushing paperwork around. What that "something" is, is uncertain. It's absolutely clear that one elementary school will be required due to the large number of new residents (5,000 or more). There should be a park with playing fields. It's likely that the developers would donate this land in exchange for the city of Fremont and Fremont Unified partnering to build the school. If you're looking for a similar type of development, you need look no further than Santa Clara, whose Rivermark development stretched over 150+ acres on the old Agnews Hospital site. Obviously, no ballpark was included, but the community got a new $20 million K-8 school, a community policing center, a fire station, and a 11-acre park.

I haven't included the transportation part because it deserves its own discussion, and from comments here and elsewhere, it is quite a divisive issue.

---

Kudos to Carl Steward for mentioning Drawbridge in his column today. I love Drawbridge.

---

I saw the Cisco Field commercial broadcast for the first time during a break on KGO-7's late newscast. Cisco's seriously into this.