Reading between the lines, Part III - TIF

In the last installment we covered the impact of new retail development and the increase in sales taxes the ballpark village would provide. This time out we'll turn our attention to housing. It's the key to the whole deal, as it's assumed that housing proceeds will largely fund the ballpark. Housing is where A's consultants ERA are claiming the greatest amounts of benefits for Fremont. Are they blowing smoke here, or are their claims actually achievable?

The story starts with Prop 13, the landmark piece of legislation passed in 1978 that greatly limited assessments and property tax levies. Faced with severe budget crunches, cities started to look for other methods to preserve tax revenue. Arguably the most popular method was to create redevelopment districts. Originally the intent was to rehabilitate so-called "blighted" areas. A redevelopment program starts when a city identifies blight in an area. A redevelopment district is then created, which allows the city to freeze property assessments within. In following years, property taxes above the frozen level are captured by the city and used for redevelopment efforts. These funds are called tax increments. If the redevelopment agency sees a big ticket item that needs to be funded, it has the power to raise bonds, which are secured by tax increments. This instrument is called tax increment financing, or TIF.

In 25 years after Prop 13 cities took the concept to often absurd degrees. San Jose's redevelopment area in 2001 consisted of 8713 acres spread over 20 square miles, which is slightly larger than the entire Stanford University campus. Oakland's redevelopment arm is wrapped in a huge bureaucratic body called the Community and Economic Development Agency, or CEDA. To improve many truly blighted areas of Oakland, CEDA designated most of West and East Oakland as redevelopment areas.

In many cases, redevelopment efforts have rejuvenated economically depressed areas. However, it has also choked off property tax dollars that would normally go to education. As municipalities played round after round of "robbing Peter to pay Paul," state leaders started to reconsider the efficacy and value of redevelopment programs. Over the past several years, redevelopment agencies all over the state have scaled back both their programs and the size of their agencies.

Fremont's redevelopment agency has been less aggressive than San Jose's or Oakland's. It has been focused on three key areas:

• Revitalizing commercial centers in three districts: Centerville, Irvington, Niles
• Capturing tax increments to help finance highway interchange improvements for the Industrial district, in which Pacific Commons and the Ballpark Village site lies.
• The creation and administration of affordable housing throughout the city.
  

I can't comment on the effectiveness of the first initiative above, but the second has shown results. All of the 880 interchanges serving the Industrial area are complete with the exception of the 880/Mission/Warren interchange, which is due for completion in 2008. The project doesn't fit within the definition of blight, which goes to show how loose the term is. It has worked out well for both businesses and residents, who prior to the revamp were forced to use cramped, old, poorly designed ramps that were in place decades before old Highway 17 was converted into Interstate 880. Even though the project was conceived without an eye towards a ballpark, this new infrastructure will serve fans extremely well.

Debt service on the highway infrastructure is expected to be retired in the next several years, yet the redevelopment district expires in 2023. That means that for the 3,000-acre Industrial district, there is a huge, dormant potential for tax increment revenue already in place - if someone were to take advantage by developing part of the area a certain way.

At least that's what consultant ERA claims. The implementation plan for the Industrial district does not call for housing within the area. They assume that the land would remain dormant for at least the next decade if the Ballpark Village were not developed. Cisco is looking to expand, but is more interested in the area around its corporate HQ in North San Jose than it is in Fremont. This is in keeping with a recent trend of Valley "mega-campuses" being sought by Google, Yahoo!, and Apple. There's no need for another power center shopping mall there. Virtually all of the big box stores that would normally fill a new power center are already spoken for in Pacific Commons or in the surrounding area. So that assumption is largely correct. I reproduced the table at the end of the report that shows how tax increments would increase as the Ballpark Village was built. Over the length of the project, the net tax increment would equal $58.6 million.

There is a flaw in the numbers above. ERA assumes that tax increments should be calculated based solely on the 1983 assessments, which have the 143-acre main parcel valued at $4 million ($28,000 per acre). Currently the parcels are assessed at $588,000 per acre, which means they're worth $85 million. The difference means that at a 1% taxation rate, tax increment would be $810,000 more than if ERA were basing their study on the current assessments. Over the construction period, that equates to $4.9 million in property taxes. Mind you, this is an interpretation of ERA's data, but it's something to mull over as we analyze the figures further. I point this out because using ERA's methodology inflates the true potential benefits.

Whether we're talking $58.6 million or $53.7 million (adjusted), it's a lot of money. The bulk of this would be generated by the 2,900 townhomes. The housing alone will bring in almost $20 million per year in tax increment. The numbers are realistic due to the high cost of real estate in the Bay Area. One thing to keep in mind is that this money has to be allotted for redevelopment projects or stay within the agency. It can't be used for city services or other general fund uses, nor can it be used to shore up the general fund.

Redevelopment has other smaller tasks for the Industrial district that go beyond the highway infrastructure:

• A Learning Center on an approximately 4-10 acre parcel in the Project Area to provide advanced technology life-time learning facilities and resources that are accessible to businesses locating in the Project Area and to the broader Fremont community
• A station and related facilities and services to provide commuter rail and bus service to the Project Area (where Auto Mall meets the Union Pacific tracks)
  
• Widening of Fremont Boulevard from Cushing to Warren (already underway)
  

Notice how they use the words "Learning Center" as opposed to "school." There's no indicator what public/private body would build and run the Learning Center. The only definition is this:

The Agency will assist in the development of an advanced technology life-time learning center on an approximately 4-10 acre parcel in the Project Area that is accessible to businesses locating in and near the Project Area and to the broader Fremont community (the "Learning Center").

Now that sounds like an adult education center or technical college. It could be run either publicly or privately. Surrounding private property owners would not be required to provide anything towards the creation of the Learning Center. But since the implementation plan would change once the ballpark village was incorporated, it leaves room for a change to the Learning Center concept. It's quite possible that a public elementary school could be co-located with the Learning Center. It could be conceived in a way that maximizes land use and available space, while also consolidating costs. If it were a joint effort of City/Redevelopment, FUSD, and either Ohlone College or UC Extension, it could be a very fruitful effort. Cisco, via its foundation, could get a huge amount of positive PR by contributing technology and expertise. The A's would have to donate some of the land they're purchasing, but the city has 40 acres of its own nearby that it can swap because the A's covet the land for parking. The complicated part would be that redevelopment would have to authorize and issue bonds to cover this part of the project. But securing those bonds would be a slam dunk because $58 million is certainly enough to cover both the Learning Center and the transit hub. If not, tax increment projections beyond the year 2016 would total approximately $100 million through 2023 end date.

That said, the city doesn't have to do this at all. The municipal code only calls for new students from new developments to be fit into the existing school infrastructure. Adding nearly 700 students to schools that are divided from the village by a freeway and an aerial mile is not a good long-term solution. When Wolff talks about creative solutions for the city, I think this is one a possibility. I don't talk to him or his staff so I don't know if they've explored it, but it's a more than reasonable way to spend tax dollars.

Do you think this is a smart way to go? Does this sound like Wolff squeezing the city for a subsidy? As discussed previously, the two big pieces missing from the plan are a school and a transit hub. Redevelopment has mandated the transit hub be built, while there's an opening for a school if every party were to play ball (pun intended). To me it's downright fortuitous. As recently as a month ago I said that TIF potential was limited. After further review, it's much greater than I had initially thought - at least if it's used for non-ballpark activities. The best part is that Fremont would only be doing what they already have planned, with a few changes to make accommodations for the ballpark village.

All of this possible through housing related tax increment. To paraphrase a former president, "It's the housing, stupid."

The ballpark's contribution to tax increment is uncertain, probably nil. Wolff said during his progress report that ownership of the stadium hasn't been determined. What the A's and MLB probably want is what ERA cites in its study:

The ballpark is assumed to have some form of underlying public ownership, and not be on the property tax rolls.

If the ballpark is publicly owned, the city would miss out on collecting property taxes as San Francisco does with AT&T Park, where the stadium is owned by the team on city-owned land. Depreciation rates are difficult to determine, but at 5% over 30 years, that translates to over $70 million in unrealized property taxes. Over the six-year build out period, that's nearly $24 million. In case you're wondering, property tax and insurance are two huge sources of overhead that actually make private ownership of a stadium unattractive. Sure, a team can partly write off those costs, but not all of them.

The next installment will cover city services, including fire and police. I'm putting off the economic benefits (multipliers) piece until next week.

A's sign Fremont land deal

Chron's Patrick Hoge reports:

The owners of the Oakland A's announced today that they have signed a contract to buy 168 acres for a proposed ballpark development in Fremont.

Lew Wolff, the team's managing partner, said the deal will allow him quickly to submit an application to the city for a roughly 32,000-seat stadium, surrounded by housing and high-end commercial development.

Really? It sounds different from what the Argus's Chris De Benedetti reported earlier today:

There is no new information regarding the land transaction, a Cisco spokeswoman said. ProLogis spokesman Arthur Hodges declined to comment.

Meanwhile, Wolff has been meeting with Fremont staff members as often as twice a month since December to discuss the project. The A's are scheduled to meet again with city staff members May 17, Fremont officials said.

As to when the A's might submit a development application or a formal plan, that step is "probably a few months away," Wolff said.

Alrighty then. Here's the obligatory map if you want to familiarize yourself. The A's are buying the yellow section.

This is a pretty big move. Not "done deal" definitive, but rather "planting their stake in the ground" serious. That stake has to be worth around $200 million. Correction: According to the press release and Barry Witt's report, the A's have amassed 226 acres. Land value is around $500 million.

Reading between the lines, Part II - Ballpark begets Pottery Barn

It's amazing what happens when you're not trying to sell the moon. While some of the projections in the economic impact report fall into the half-full (vs. half-empty) classification, many of the assumptions are well grounded and make a good foundation for the case the report lays out.

Since neither the city or county are being asked to cough up a large tax-free bond, there's little need to make the outlandish claims normally foisted upon the public with other stadium initiatives. Here are a couple of examples:

• Player salaries are largely exempt from claims about economic impact. It is assumed that each player on the A's 25-man roster will spend only $100,000 of their salaries in the area. The rest will go towards homes out of the area and other investments.
  
• Projected attendance is only 2,150,000 per year through the turnstiles on an averaged annual basis. That's less than 27,000 per game. By not projecting constant sellouts through the first x years, there's little risk of not delivering on those projections. Of course, since those projections don't translate into revenue for the city/county, it doesn't really matter that much.
• Additional non-A's game events such as concerts and facility rentals are not discussed at all. As a result there's no inflation of benefits.
  

There's a rule-of-thumb when writing reports like this: Throw out a bunch of numbers, the biggest ones will stick. This tends to obfuscate the true impact of such a project, which should really be measured in hard tax dollars. The problem is that with most stadium projects, we know where the money goes - to the team. It disappears down a rabbit hole and into millionaires' bank accounts. The task at hand, then, is to wade through the hype and get to those numbers.

Let's start with what the report calls "Gross Sales at the New Ballpark." This covers non-ticket stadium revenue (concessions, merchandise, parking). The projected figure is $32 million per season, or $14.32 per attendee. As mentioned previously, this revenue stays with the team, so neither the city nor county sees any direct benefit. They get the satisfaction of knowing that the money is being spent within city and county limits, but little else.

The Ballpark Village Retail projections are where it gets more interesting and compelling. The Fremont (Tri-Cities) area is ripe for high-end retail along the lines of Santana Row. Pacific Commons is 15 miles from Valley Fair/Santana Row and 16 miles from Stoneridge Mall, putting it in a unique position. The combined population of Fremont, Newark, Union City, and Milpitas approaches 400,000 and is steadily gaining affluence.

Final retail space after build out will be 550,000 square feet. The mix of retailers should produce $400 per square foot of annual sales (less than I had estimated earlier), resulting in $220 million in gross sales. Of that figure, 75% of sales, or $165 million, is expected to be new to Fremont due to many of the fact that many of those retailers don't have a location in or near Fremont. If 90% of those sales were taxable, sales tax revenue would equal at least $1.4 million per year.

Is that projection realistic? Moreover, does this area need yet another Pottery Barn? The answer to the latter is subjective, but for the former, probably yes. Consider this map:

Yes, that's a map of Pottery Barn locations in the Bay Area. The red star indicates the location of ZIP code 94538, home to Pacific Commons. Notice the gap between #1 and #3? The closest location is arguably a $4 toll away, in Palo Alto.

Now look at these tables. The first has big box (warehouse) stores such as Costco. Wal-Mart and Fry's are somewhat anomalous due to political or private concerns, but the other retailers have extremely good coverage all over the Bay Area.

We certainly don't need another Target. But when we switch to high-end retailers, everything changes.

Notice that the further you move to the right on the table, the further you get from Fremont. There's a huge gap in the area. It's one that won't get filled on its own due to market inertia. It would take a big ticket item like a ballpark and an influx of high-income residents (via the ballpark village) to make it attractive for those retailers to set up shop.

The argument should be made that without the ballpark as an anchor, these retailers wouldn't come to the area. In fact, the report argues that without the ballpark village, the land wouldn't be developed at all for at least a decade. Conversely, the area's not such a slam dunk that it sells itself based on location alone.

Hotel taxes would bring in up to $300,000 per year. Another $400,000 would come from property transfer tax for transactions within the project area. Still other miscellaneous local tax revenue sources make up the balance. Add to that the $1 million that the A's will pay towards city services and you get to approximately $3.6 million per year.

Assuming that the $1 million is a wash because it'll be used to pay for game-related city services, is the rest enough to make it worthwhile? Fremont is one of the safest cities in America, so how much additional police and fire protection will be required to keep up that standard with the ballpark village in place? In other words, does that remaining $2.6 million per year make the whole exercise worthwhile? That's for Fremont's leaders to decide.

...but wait, there's more! Later today or tomorrow I'll cover the ever mysterious TIF funds and those dreaded and confusing multipliers.

Reading between the lines, Part I

It's bad form, but I'm going to start off with a few sidebar items because they're rather interesting. Advance ticket sales account for 80% of all tickets sold. The remaining 20% is walkup sales. Here's a geographical breakdown:

• Oakland accounts for 8.8% of advance ticket sales
• San Francisco accounts for 13% of advance ticket sales
• Fremont's share is 2.3%, Santa Clara County is at 10.5%
• Alameda County in total buys 27.3% of advance tickets
• Contra Costa County buys 20.7%
• 10.4% comes from outside the nine-county Bay Area
• 8.2% comes from outside California

The San Francisco number has to take into account certain factors such as Giants fans' impact on attendance during the 3-game set played at the Coliseum every year (rough estimate: 1.5-2% of ticket sales). One has to wonder what negative impact will come with the lack of BART access, especially for SF residents who have no other public transit alternative.

That said, there's no better representation of how regional the team is than the table the above information comes from on page III-10.

Page III-6 has a graph showing historical attendance. Surprisingly, they use both paid attendance and turnstile attendance figures in the comparison. Since the start of the A's run of success in 2000, actual (turnstile) attendance has run only 80% of paid attendance. Since sellouts are sellouts, that can only mean that those Monday/Tuesday night April series openers draw even worse than you'd think (or they'd announce). The upshot is that concessions sales are behind the curve.

Now onto housing. Start saving your pennies, prospective buyers. A townhouse will run on average $675,000 at the Ballpark Village. Some units will obviously be cheaper and others much more expensive, but they put the number out there. Construction on each new residential unit is estimated at $380,000. Other important figures:

• The 600 first units would be available in 2011, in line with the opening of the ballpark.
• 600 units would be sold each year through 2014; 500 would be sold in 2015 to finish the rollout
• The residential portion would bring in 8,787 new residents to Fremont

This is the point where the questions come up. The first is about tax increment financing. From Page VI-4:

The projections in Table VI-3 assume that the County and other affected agencies will agree to raise the cap for this project area. If the cap is not raised, less future money will flow into the Redevelopment Agency, and somewhat more will flow into the City’s General Fund...

The assumption here is that the Redevelopment Zone would remain for some time. I have to correct myself on this. In the past I noted that the zone's existing debt would be retired in 2014. However, the zone itself would expire on November 22, 2023, long after the ballpark village has been built. The city's redevelopment arm would accrue over $58 million in property tax increment just through 2016, possibly $150 million through the end of the zone's life. What would happen to that money?

The area redevelopment plan shows a transit hub as a requirement. That's pretty much a given with this project. How expansive would the transit hub be? It's one thing to have a rail platform, some bus stalls and a parking lot. Would they also consider additional road or rail infrastructure?


Speaking of infrastructure, something needs to be done to make sure new kids in the area have access to schools. The report touts the infusion of $10 million into FUSD's coffers. But it also says this:

New enrollment will be directed to existing school facilities as efficiently as possible to balance the student population with capacity.

The area is projected to have 684 new K-12 students. The statement above implies that all of these new students would have to be bussed or driven to existing schools on the other side of 880. Two schools in that area have around 500 students, so the impact could be enormous. We're talking about adding a new neighborhood's worth of students without a new school. That makes very little sense.

Schools are not cheap. Don Callejon School, which was built as part of the Rivermark development in Santa Clara, cost $26 million to construct. Even then, I don't think price is so much the issue as available land is. If the ballpark village core takes up 25 acres and housing takes up 120, that leaves precious little land for parking, required park facilities, or a school. Will someone pony up for a school in the project area?

Next, do a search for the term "affordable housing" in the report and you'll get no results. There's no reference to Fremont's requirement that all new residential construction have 15% of the project be available at affordable housing cost. There's also no reference to various incentives that the city gives to developers to encourage them to build affordable housing.

This is the one issue I can see becoming a real sticking point. How would the A's and their partner developers tackle this? It's great that Fremont offers a density bonus, but the lack of information about how the requirement would be fulfilled is troubling. It's something that frequently holds up other housing developments, since it affects developer profits.

In the tabulation of tax increment revenue, it is mentioned that there's a mandatory set aside of around 20% of the revenue for low and moderate income housing. Is that money under consideration to fulfill the requirement? If so that's quite an endaround.

The next post will cover direct and indirect economic impact.

Economic Impact Report now available

The big takeaway from Wolff's progress report tonight was that the Economic Impact Report for the project is now available. I've only barely scanned through it so far and here are some key points:

• Ballpark is still 30-34,000 seats, cost = $450 million
  
• The 2,900 housing units will be spread over 120 acres, for a density of 24 units per acre. There would be a mix of brownstone-type units and higher density development adjacent to the ballpark, cost = $1.1 billion
  
• 550,000 square feet of "high quality mixed-use/retail," the majority of which would be in a "lifestyle center" (a.k.a. outdoor mall); the remainder would be "entertainment retail in a 'Main Street' environment activated by the residential neighborhood and the ballpark. Cost = $198 million
  
• High-end boutique hotel with only 100 rooms, cost = $30 million
• Total project cost would be $1.8 billion
  
• Total economic impact (using multipliers) would be $3.2 billion
  

Next I'll quote verbatim from the report from its summary of economic impacts:

• The direct economic impact on Alameda County will be approximately $109 million per year from the operations of the Athletics franchise, the operations of concessions within the ballpark, the net new retail spending captured by the Baseball Village retail, and the net new spending captured in the county from the new households in the Ballpark Village.
• Including the indirect and induced “multiplier” effects, the Ballpark Village will generate over $191 million per year in total economic output for Alameda County, and create approximately $50 million each year in personal earnings, which in turn supports approximately 1,762 incremental jobs within Alameda County.
• The net present value over the next 30 years of the total expansion in economic output of Alameda County will be between $700 million and $2 billion, depending upon the discount rate used, as a result of implementing the Ballpark Village proposal.
• Construction of the Ballpark Village is estimated to cost approximately $1.8 billion in today’s dollars. Over the several years it will take to build and absorb the project, over 13,000 full-time equivalent annual jobs will be created, along with almost $600 million in earnings for those workers. Alameda County will experience a one-time economic expansion during the construction period of almost $3.2 billion.
• For the Fremont Unified School District, over $10 million in development fees will be collected from the project.
• For the City of Fremont, over $3.6 million per year will be generated after build out in General Fund revenues. While the costs of providing General Fund municipal services cannot be estimated until a formal development application is submitted, these General Fund revenues will be unrestricted in their use for offsetting costs. Additional revenues will be generated for the City in the form of fees and charges to offset non-general fund services provided, and by the Special Services tax levied within the Pacific Commons development area.
• The Fremont Redevelopment Agency, upon project build out, will be collecting over $15 million per year in today’s dollars in the form of property tax increments and set-aside funds for low- and moderate-income housing.

I need to read more before I post any significant analysis. A couple of notes however:

• Tax increment is mentioned, though not as a method to pay for the project; rather it's used as positive economic impact for the city and county (the usual skepticism applies).
• Additional tax revenue sources are identified, though not the gross receipts tax I found earlier.
  

The report is 60 pages long and is chock full of tables. Enjoy.

---

Now for a few observations about the progress report:

• The $500K paid last month was reimbursement for process work
  
• The best method for owning the stadium has not yet been determined, whether public, private, or a mix
  
• Traffic and environmental impact reports are meant to show that the project would have the same or fewer impacts than the currently planned use (office park)
• Jane Gothrop was the last of two speakers and expressed her concern about environmental impacts, urging the council to make sure the project had a full, complete, transparent, open review. To that end, Mayor Wasserman replied that the project would indeed have such a review.
• Council were mostly positive, mostly champing at the bit - especially Anu Natarajan and Bill Harrison, who by trade is a CPA.
  

I've got some reading to do. BTW, Wolff reads this site. And the comments.

Ballpark Village Progress Report - Tuesday, 5/8

From the Fremont City Clerk's office (I used bold for emphasis):

Subject: Ballpark Village Project Progress Report

TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

FROM: CITY OF FREMONT

SUBJECT: BALLPARK VILLAGE PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

This is to advise you that an agenda item has been scheduled for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2007, to hear a progress report from Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff on the Ballpark Village Project. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.

The meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers located at 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A, Fremont, California.

If you have any questions regarding this agenda item, please contact Economic Development Director Daren Fields at (510) 284-4020 or at dfields@ci.fremont.ca.us.

Sincerely,

Dawn G. Abrahamson
City Clerk

Office of the City Clerk

See y'all there. For those of you who won't be there, check out the webcast.

Ballpark Village comparison

Ask and ye shall receive. Bleacher Dave suggested that I compare different ballpark village developments around the country. Luckily I waited until NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his aggressive development plan for the Willets Point neighborhood east of Shea Stadium/CitiField, adding one more point of reference in the process.

For this comparison, I've strictly observed developments around major league ballparks. While there are several examples of village-type projects near minor league facilities, they're typically much smaller in scope and potential economic impact so for now, I've left those out. New Yankee Stadium is also not included because the ancillary development mostly consists of garages and parkland placed near or atop those garages.

The four markets being covered are:

• San Diego's Ballpark District, at the edge of the trendy, gentrified Gaslamp Quarter
• St. Louis's Ballpark Village, on the site of the previous incarnation of Busch Stadium
• Willets Point in Queens, home to mostly junkyards and auto repair shops that are visible from the Shea Stadium parking lot
• Fremont, the only undeveloped site of the four and the only one not in an urban environment

Not to be forgotten is that the first three projects have access to good public transit infrastructure. Fremont may have at best indirect access to BART or commuter trains.

San Diego's Ballpark District actually covers some 26 blocks north and east of PETCO, but it has been scaled back significantly since its inception. $300 million in public financing for the ballpark was exchanged for a promise by Padres owner John Moores to develop much of the surrounding area. The delayed opening of the ballpark occurred before the start of the real estate downturn in the San Diego market. The area's housing prices have flattened or dropped over the last year or so as new construction and conversions have come online, creating a glut of sorts. This phenomenon doesn't affect the ballpark's financing, but San Diego has had plenty of other fiscal problems, namely its debt load and accounting scandals. The city's damaged credit rating (from its $1.4 billion pension crisis) held until March, when the ballpark bonds were refinanced to reflect an interest rate drop from 7.66% (!) to 5.23%.

The Ballpark Village next to new Busch Stadium may look large at $650 million, but it's far smaller than the other projects. Development is being driven by the Cardinals and partner firm The Cordish Company, but last year Cordish requested a subsidy to keep the project moving forward. In February, the city approved a $115 million cash infusion into Ballpark Village. Cordish is a name to watch for as it specializes in large urban redevelopment efforts and pulls in major subsidies in the process. The original agreement between the development partners and the city called for the first block of development to open in 2007. That date has slipped to 2009. In the meantime, the price tag has grown from $300 million to $650 million.

The Willets Point (a.k.a. "Iron Triangle") section of Queens is known for its run down auto shops and junkyards. Previous city leaders have targeted it for massive projects, most notably the 2012 Summer Olympics bid. After MSG/Cablevision effectively killed all hope for Jets/Olympic Stadium on Manhattan's West Side, attention turned to Willets Point for a stadium and press center. The new site of CitiField is sandwiched between the existing Shea Stadium and the Iron Triangle, further propelling Bloomberg to redevelop the area. Existing business owners have pledged to fight eminent domain proceedings to the very end, but we know how that often turns out...

That leaves us with the Cisco Field project. Aesthetically and politically, it has little in common with the other three plans except for that it's a ballpark with ancillary development. In adherence with the path of least resistance concept, it would appear that it has relatively few obstacles for its completion.

• No upfront public money (bonds) is being requested for either the ballpark or ancillary development (as far as we know).
• There are no eminent domain or other major land acquisition problems that could delay development (factoring in the Scott Gas situation).
• Repayment of any privately raised bonds is likely dependent on ancillary development beginning quickly, forcing the developer to mitigate or eliminate any delays associated with the project.

Knowing that these elements should help put the project on the relative fast track, one would hope that Wolff and his people would focus even more attention on transportation solutions, as that's the obvious weak point in the proposal. Even then, there's only so much that can be done.

49ers and (some of) the details

Good session tonight. The 49ers seem to be improving on the PR front. Before I get into that, here's what I got out of the council session.

Finances

• The current stadium estimate is $854 million, including $111 million in inflation costs associated with a 2010 construction start date.
• 81% of the project funding would come from the team, the NFL, and various advance stadium revenue sources (more on that later).
• 19% would come from $160 million in City-derived funding.
• That $160 million contribution does not include money for a garage that would have to be built to accommodate parking requirements for Cedar Fair, the company that currently owns and operates Great America.
• The contribution also does not include money for a potential relocation of the on-site power substation. The Merc pegs this cost at $20-30 million.
• The league's G-3 loan program has been exhausted and it is not known if the 49ers will be able to utilize the "club seat waiver" facility used for other stadiums. The league and the team are still working on the source.
• The team would cover cost overruns.
• A stadium authority would be created to collect project revenues, own and operate the stadium.
• Some revenue would be captured for use in a stadium improvement fund, which would be utilized every 5-7 years.

What isn't known is what the stadium authority actually is. Sure, it's a quasi-public governing body, just as the Coliseum Authority or a mass transit joint-powers authority is. Beyond that, we're getting into a gray area. When one resident asked if the stadium authority was really just an extension of the city (and as such the city would be liable for financing), 49ers CFO Larry MacNeil simply said that the project would not touch the city's general fund.

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question. Stadium authorities are sometimes created to pool resources from various jurisdictions, but that doesn't appear to be the case here as the team would be dealing almost entirely with the city. If the authority is asked to issue bonds and the city owns the authority and the stadium, then it stands to reason that the city is ultimately responsible for a lot of the debt service. Honestly, it makes sense for the 49ers to ask the city to move in this direction since it would allow for access to lower interest and/or tax-free bonds. MacNeil was very careful not to specify which method of city funding would be required. One more interesting tidbit: the Authority would hire 69 full-time employees once the stadium is up and running.

Notice the fine print in the "Stadium Authority Project Funding" line item. There's a ticket tax, naming and pouring rights, the usual suspects. But there's also one other item that doesn't look that familiar: Stadium builders licenses. Care to guess what those are?

Transportation
The team predicts that almost 50,000 game attendees would travel by car and park in the nearby area, which has 32,500 parking spaces within 1.5 miles. The other 18,000 would travel via some mode of public transit.

While I can't argue with the charter bus estimate, the light rail number is overly optimistic. If anything, I can see it used by people who want to park at a VTA Park-n-Ride station (Great Mall, Tamien, Evelyn) and want to avoid parking fees and hassles. Those people would be missing out on tailgating. Tailgating is much more integral to a football experience than any other sport, so I'm skeptical that many would willingly take this option. It doesn't help that only a limited number of 49ers fans even have access to VTA light rail. It's also not known if the VTA estimate contains Caltrain users who might transfer in Mountain View to get to the stadium. Caltrain doesn't have a station within a 3 mile drive of the stadium. A transfer would be required via light rail, bus, or even Capitol Corridor.

The block of Tasman Drive immediately north of the stadium site would be closed on gameday to allow for safe pedestrian circulation between the convention center, light rail station, and the stadium. Several major intersections would have limited or no cross-traffic to funnel stadiumgoers to and from the venue more quickly. Additionally, nearby residential neighborhoods in both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale would have restricted access to prevent fans from parking there. This policy is already in place on one day per year: Independence Day. During the fireworks show, 101 turns into a parking lot.

As for available parking, the 49ers have already talked with several nearby office park landowners and businesses about using some of their spaces. The landowners would get the majority of the parking revenue, while the rest would go to the Authority via parking fees and the remaining revenue cut. Yahoo! bought a large swath of land located kitty corner from the nearby Hilton, and while I don't think they'll design their parking facility strictly with football parking revenue generation in mind, they may want to figure out ways to bring fans in to check out Yahoo! technologies in the nearby tech showcase center. On a related note, West Valley-Mission Chancellor Stan Arteberry endorsed the project, no doubt seeing dollar signs in potential parking revenue (Mission College is slightly under 1 mile southwest of the stadium site).

I'll end tonight with one more table that shows the various costs and revenue sources. Keep in mind that the revenue projections shown are net of debt service. I'll have more thoughts on these numbers tomorrow.

---

Update 11:30 AM - There were a few more observations I wanted to put into the original post but it was getting late and my brain was fried.

• Vice Mayor Kevin Moore suggested the possibility of building flexible space into the stadium that could be used for offices, retail, or even an annex for the Convention Center across the street.
• 49 officers would be required on game days for all manner of functions. Some would come from surrounding jurisdictions such as Sunnyvale and San Jose, possibly the Sheriff.
• When the parking and traffic diagram was shown, I couldn't help but think of FedEx Field, which has a similar sprawling parking structure. What Santa Clara has over Landover, MD is a vastly superior freeway infrastructure.
• A better parallel may be Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego. The venerable "Murph" is in the middle of several freeways and a few major arterial roads. Tasman Drive has its equivalent down south in Friars Road, an east-west arterial that repeatedly gets clogged before and after home games.
• The team intends to have the CEQA process start in August or September, making the window for the council to make a decision on the project only 3-4 months.
• Santa Clara residents may have a shuttle available to them from an offsite parking lot only they can use.
• Debt service on the facility would run 25 years. The lease would be 30 years.

49ers Preso to Santa Clara

I plan to attend tonight's Santa Clara City Council session, at which the 49ers will present the important details of their stadium plan. I didn't originally plan to go but I'm curious about how well the 49ers make the sales pitch.

Coincidentally, the last time I attended a City Council session was when A's President Mike Crowley traveled down here to talk up the A's stadium proposal several years ago.

A's file something with Fremont, Quakes-SJSU deal dies

On Wednesday, the A's rather quietly filed " 'an application to negotiate a development agreement,' Fremont Economic Development Director Daren Fields said." What Fremont mayor Bob Wasserman terms "a double, not a home run" is more like sacrifice bunt made to move a runner into scoring position. So far this season, the A's have had only one player who has shown the ability to lay that bunt down. But I digress.

The A's also dropped off $500K with the application. It falls short of what I've been looking for (the application, not the money), but it's a start. The abrupt nature and timing of the application makes me wonder if there is something to my thought that the San Jose and Fremont development plans are somehow tied. There are plenty of factors in the Fremont deal alone that need to be addressed. An externality like San Jose would severely complicate matters. I'd like to think that the Fremont deal is completely standalone, but maybe it isn't and Wolff is scrambling in light of the recent news in San Jose.

---

Speaking of San Jose, the shared stadium concept for the Spartans and Quakes has died as neither side could come to an agreement on revenue splits. After looking over the details of the deal, I've come to the conclusion that both sides were right not to budge.

From SJSU's standpoint, Don Kassing had little desire to cede control over a large piece of property to a private party. While it's true that SJSU would not have had to pay for any of the construction, the land itself has significant value despite its mostly deteriorating condition. On the other hand, Earthquakes Soccer, LLC was paying for construction of everything, all they wanted was a cheap land lease to keep overhead low.

The Quakes were willing to pay $1 million guaranteed per year, plus a split of revenue based on the events held. SJSU would get revenue from Spartan events. The Quakes would get revenue from Quakes games. The two parties would split revenue from other events such as concerts.

That $1 million offered per year is essentially a lease payment. If you're the Quakes you think this is a good deal considering the circumstances, and especially in light of other stadium deals in which the team not only doesn't pay for the stadium, but also doesn't pay for anything else like a land lease. If the Quakes have to pay $6 million, that payment severely cuts into the split you were planning with SVS+E, the likely stadium operator. If you're Kassing, you're thinking that $1 million for the Quakes to lease several dozen acres of public/university land is not getting bang for the buck. That may sound like more of a philosophical stand than a hard numbers stand, but Kassing has every right to do it.

In the end the deal has to pencil out for both parties. It obviously didn't in this case, so they both walked away. The Quakes are tied to San Jose if they want to finance the venue since the Edenvale property is the apparent key. There are other site possibilities, but land costs now have to be a concern.

Forbes says $292 million

It's the second week of the season, which means it's time for Forbes to release its list of MLB team valuations. The usual suspects (Yanks, Mets, BoSox, Dodgers, Cubs) lead the pack. Towards the bottom of the list, the A's estimated value jumped 24% to $292 million. That compares to the league averages of 15% rise in value and $431 million.

In the meantime, the A's payroll has gone up much more gradually, only 1.3% from 2005 to 2006 and 6.7% from 2006 to 2007. Before you start on that angry e-mail to Lew Wolff and Billy Beane about how they could've afforded Frank Thomas or, um, someone other desirable free agent, take a look at the following table:

The payroll cost as a function of revenue is the key indicator. That was driven down from well over 60% to just under 55%. The owners must've gotten the memo from Bud Selig to go with the program and keep that player cost at that comfortable 55% threshold. Should franchise value go up again next season, I would expect payroll to jump a proportional amount. If growth is flat, payroll should stay flat.

However, that player cost as a function of value is intriguing. It's akin to home equity, and it will come handy when the time comes to borrow for Cisco Field. It's likely that the media buzz around Cisco Field helped drive the rise in valuation.

The A's ranked 24th on the list and were surrounded by familiar faces: Florida, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Cincinnati. Of those teams, the Royals pulled in an astounding $32 million in revenue sharing last year. The Marlins made $43 million (EBITDA) in 2007. It just so happens that the state/local governments and the Marlins are $30 million apart ($60 million over 30 years) in their efforts to fund a new Miami-area ballpark. How about applying some of that profit to bridge the gap and gain some seriously positive PR in the process? Perhaps that's too much for Jeff Loria and David Samson to be magnanimous.

Brrrrrr

That's right, folks. There were over 20K present at Tuesday's game, yours truly included. Most came prepared for the cold despite the blanket giveaway, and most stayed until the end. There has always been talk about Croix de Candlestick pin nights and high winds. Tuesday night gave that legend a run for its money.

Temperature at first pitch was 52 degrees, with a noticeable breeze and the sun setting through partly cloudy skies. By the third inning, that breeze turned into a steady 20 mph wind. I didn't bring my portable weather station to verify it, but I figure the wind chill dipped the temperature another 3-5 degrees.

Funny thing is I remember nights like this in mid May. And late August. With the Warriors wiping the floor with the B-team Mavs next door, a lack of parking could have dissuaded some from attending the game. On the BART train home I heard one rider talk about how he had to park at Wal-Mart for a weekend game. Nevertheless I was pleasantly surprised by the turnout (which had a little something to do with the blankets). The BART bridge was packed as some Warriors fans left the blowout early.

I've touched on this briefly, but I have to ask again: How much does weather affect attendance? I can recall numerous occasions when friends who are casual A's fans chose not to go simply because of the cold. I could be way off base, but I sense that it has a greater impact than some think.

---

One note about attendance: The main difference between this season's figures and last season's is the fact that the Yankees didn't play here Opening Day as they did last season. The combination of a Yankees game and Opening Day effectively removed one date from pulling a sellout crowd. That normally represents a loss of 10,000 fans or more.

San Jose Love Triangle

The Merc's ruffling feathers at Glass R2D2 in their attempts to get the pols to release information about negotiations between San Jose and Lew Wolff. Barry Witt's already gotten the crux of the story, what remains are - what else? - details. Mayor Chuck Reed would prefer to draft and release a report summarizing the discussions, while others want the MOU (memorandum of understanding) between the two parties and supporting documentation. In requesting the report, Reed cites the need for sensitivity while the parties are still in negotiation. The hot topic isn't so much the stadium at this point as the rezoning-entitlements deal that Wolff is pursuing in the Edenvale neighborhood (South San Jose).

Certainly some of the Merc's muckraking comes from the notion that they're trying to hold Reed up to the standard he created for himself when, during last year's mayoral campaign, he claimed to be the true plain-talking, "open government" candidate. The platform earned Reed a landslide victory, so Reed has to be careful to manage this situation carefully. The ramifications of a bad negotiation don't stop with the Quakes/SJSU stadium, they extend to Reed's plans for redevelopment in his old North San Jose stomping grounds as well.

Not to be ignored is SJSU, the entity that owns the land on which the new stadium will be built. Negotiations continue between them and the A's on revenue sharing, enough that University President Don Kassing came off sounding less than optimistic:

"I don't know if it's going to come together," Kassing said. "I say that not to be pessimistic, but I don't know. It would consume 40 acres approximately, so we would provide a parcel of land - they put a commercial activity on that land and then make money.
"So we provide an opportunity for them to make money by having a parcel of land. We don't donate it, it's our land, belongs to the State of Calif. - San Jose State, and we want a return on that land, and so far we haven't found it."

I sense this is just some poker table bluster. Kassing has every right to make sure SJSU gets a fair deal especially when dealing with a private wheeler-dealer like Wolff. But there has to be a recognition of two things:

• The stadium may be the best chance for SJSU to get a modern facility, which should help its suddenly resurgent football program.
• MLK Library II became hugely successful as a result of a necessary partnership between SJSU and San Jose, so there is a precedent for getting a modern facility built that doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the school. In fact, there's already an example of what the Quakes are pursuing in Carson, where the AEG-operated Home Depot Center sits on the Cal State-Dominguez Hills campus.
  

Practically speaking, people are getting excited a little too early in the process. Even if the city didn't disclose any details of their negotiations prior to Wolff's presentation, the public's still going to have every opportunity to scrutinize the project in its entirety, including the rezoning scheme and public benefits such as new soccer fields. I understand where all of the interested parties (including the Merc) are coming from. Still, everyone needs to chill.

There is one other quote from Kassing from the Spartan Daily article linked above:

"I can't tell you everything because I don't want to compromise the confidentiality of the conversations," Kassing said in a press conference on April 3. "But the Earthquakes, through a really creative idea of Lew Wolff's, would seek from the city the rezoning of a parcel of property … and change the zoning from commercial/industrial to residential. Apparently when you do that, the value goes way up… . That difference would be used to build the stadium."

The difference would be used to build the stadium? That sounds familiar...

Twins Show and Tell

After the Twins agreed to bridge the gap on the land price dispute for their downtown ballpark, they unveiled renderings of the 40,000-seat, open air stadium. The design is very much signature HOK, but unlike some of their more sprawling projects, they and local firm HGA were constrained by an 8-acre site. Somehow they managed to squeeze a million square feet into the plan, which from the planning standpoint is a marvel.

The exterior would look more original if the sketch didn't strongly evoke PETCO Park. Instead of PETCO's sandstone, the as yet unnamed/unsponsored Minneapolis ballpark will be clad in limestone.

This cross-section shows a good cantilever in the club level and a decent one in the terrace level. Notice how the loading area (yellow) is underneath the sidewalk adjacent to the ballpark.

This cross-section is of the left field seats. It's a two-level structure with an upper deck that lines up with the lower deck. There are also a couple of interesting quirks. The area between the "exterior" wall and the light rail station is so narrow that the ballpark's circulation ramp actually hangs over the sidewalk. They even managed to fit additional back-of-the-house facilities underneath the train station.

Here's the real kicker. You might not recognize it immediately, but there are three - count 'em - three parking garages on top of a major road. That's no ordinary street - it's Interstate 394, a spur that runs from the suburbs to downtown Minneapolis. If they are really planning to do this, they better save their pennies for the parking infrastructure. It will not be cheap.

Correction: The parking garages are already in place thanks to work completed as part of earlier projects. According to this link, Ramp A cost $64 million.

Biz of Baseball's Wolff Interview

Maury Brown dropped a quick note to tell me that his interview with Lew Wolff was going to be up tonight. It's now available. Brown covered a lot of ground with the interview. Wolff, for his part, tackled a couple of pressing topics, though he revealed nothing new about the transportation situation.

Regarding Scott Specialty Gases, Wolff said this:

The Scott Gas issue is one of relocation and not of a soil problem.

Where are those misinformed cries about toxic waste again?

Maury also had a really good question about how the ballpark deal was conceived:

BizBall: In your opinion, is the Ballpark Village concept a unique, large market opportunity, or do you think that this represents the future of stadium construction (and how to fund it), regardless of market size? Or, is it specific to a particular market and situation?

Wolff: Well, that’s a very astute question. I have to say that if a ballpark can be accommodated in the core of a community—in the urban area—I think that has lots of pluses. Like San Francisco, San Diego, some of those parks. In our case we had to sort of create an urban center for two reasons: one, to make it esthetically interesting. We don’t want the ballpark surrounded by parking. We want it to be, as we call it, ‘a sculpture within a project.’ And secondly, since we are not getting the traditional public assistance, we need to have ancillary development to help support the cost of the facility.

This goes back to the idea of creating somewhere out of nowhere. John King's excellent two-part series in the Chronicle covers several urban-type developments in traditionally suburban areas, including some in the Bay Area. (I can already imagine the debate that will ensue.)

Opening Night notes

Tomorrow, Maury Brown at The Biz of Baseball will post the interview he conducted Monday with Lew Wolff. Over the weekend Maury kindly asked me if I had any questions to contribute, but I didn't have anything that I didn't think wouldn't be covered by the development proposal and follow-up questions.

---

Chron's John Shea notes that Ron Dellums sat with Wolff last night as Wolff's opening night guest. Shea got a quote that could be interpreted as leading or meaningless, depending on your view of the A's move:

"I like him a lot," Wolff said of Dellums. "He said, 'Look, if there's a way you can stay or we can help you, let me know.' But we need that space (in Fremont). When the Coliseum opened, it must've been fantastic, but it's aging. It's 40 years old."

As for San Jose, Wolff said, "That won't happen in my reign."

Fremont wants the ballpark and housing components to be joined at the hip, and I don't expect them to budge on that stance. Shea continues:

So it's Fremont or bust -- or stick around the Coliseum for another decade or two, receive millions in revenue sharing from MLB, draw a couple of million fans annually even though they're denied access to the upper deck and always turn a profit.

How bad is that for an alternative?

Not bad if you've been a hardcore fan for several decades. Not bad at all if you want to go to many games every season for cheap. Of course, it's not you that matters that much. It's a bad alternative for Bud Selig and the Lodge of owners, who really don't care to see a team continually receiving revenue sharing while consistently outperforming their own teams on the field. I'm certain that Selig's main motivation for staying on through 2009 and perhaps longer is that he wants to see the last three stadium deals through. It would serve as his crowning achievement.

If we're going to pick this apart, let's go back to Dellums and Wolff. Wolff stated that he needed the Fremont land, and I've already said that Fremont has no interest in allowing the housing development and rezoning without the ballpark. But what if there were an alternative in Oakland?

Take a look at Chip Johnson's review of Dellums' first 100 days:

The veteran politician and longtime congressman is long on social issues, short on day-to-day operations and shows troubling signs of meddling with development.

And in the one development project where he has taken an active role, Dellums effectively killed it. In March, Dellums blocked a proposal to build a 1,575-unit condominium project atop light industry in a desolate section of West Oakland.

The West Oakland project under consideration is developer Peter Sullivan's mixed-use project at Mandela Parkway and West Grand Ave. The main reason cited for pulling the project was the desired preservation of Oakland's diminishing industrial areas. City Councilmember Nancy Nadel approved the move:

"I felt the report wasn't in the best interests of the city," Nadel said. "It made me feel better that the zoning commissioners restated their intent to implement the zoning called for in the General Plan."

What if Dellums' staff are working on a ballpark proposal incorporating that piece of land? The housing component would still be needed, and such a change would effectively be the same kind of rezoning that was pooh-poohed last month, only on a larger scale. Though there's zero indication that this is actually being discussed, it can't be ruled out completely if Dellums is interested in rolling up his sleeves. Then again, West Oakland is Nadel's domain, and judging from the fans' reaction to her in one of the "Choose or Lose" rallies, they don't think she's much of an ally. BTW, the location is 3/4 mile from the West Oakland BART station.

It doesn't hurt Wolff to play nice with Oakland, even though the situation there looks bleak as it relates to the A's.

4400 - A Magic Number

No, this post is not about the sci-fi series on the USA Network which is entering its fourth season.

Details about the SJSU/Quakes project have given hints about how the A's-Cisco Field deal will be structured. Before I explain further, take a look at the following table:

First off, it's utterly amazing that the A's stadium, which will hold only 5,000 or so additional people, will cost over six times as much. The ballpark is considerably more complex thanks to additional amenities and MLB stadium requirements, but I'll cover the details of that another day because it can be explained.

The real curiosity is the number of housing units being pitched to help finance each project. For the ballpark it's 2,900. For the stadium it's 1,500. Cisco Field will have over 100 acres of ancillary development to assist (housing, retail, commercial), while no such development is possible at SJSU's South Campus. Included in the SJSU stadium deal will be the creation of public soccer fields nearby (albeit off campus and with some city funds).

Why would the stadium project need 1,500 units? And why would the ballpark, which costs over six times as much, need only 2,900? It's difficult to quantify the impact of the ballpark village portion, but it can't be that much. The volatility of the housing market could make estimating the entitlements' impact difficult as well. Somehow each project has to add up, right? So this leaves me with one possibility:

The San Jose housing sales may help fund the ballpark.

I've been wrong before, and when the details finally emerge I may well be proven wrong on this hypothesis. Right now, the numbers don't add up unless both projects are put together - at least when compared side-by-side. It's likely that Wolff is courting the same investors for both projects, and that moving funds around to get the bills paid may be the only way to get the ballpark (the main project) built. Even if it's true, it may not be considered a big deal since in the end both deals may be viewed as fair - at least on their own terms. Still, it remains something of an eyebrow-raiser, and makes the stadium effort appear less altruistic than how it's currently perceived by some.

All the more reason to get the details out in the open, no?

49ers Economic Impact Report

I've had a chance to read the 49ers' 24-page economic impact report, and I've come to one conclusion:

• It's irrelevant when applied to the A's situation.
  

Other coverage of the report has brought up how optimistic the direct and indirect impact projections are, thanks to use of the multiplier effect. The plan looks good when framed as beneficial to Santa Clara City and County. Patterns of spending within the City are used as an argument against "displacement," or the tendency of one particular form of entertainment (football) to divert disposable income away from other forms (movies, music, other sports, etc.).

The County-specific focus makes the study somewhat flawed. While there would be positive impact on Santa Clara City and County, it's essentially the same base of 49ers fans moving south. The Bay Area as a whole wouldn't be affected significantly, except that a new stadium would bring in a large number of construction jobs for the construction period. At least the study doesn't take into account potential windfalls from ancillary development, since that is an unknown at this point.

The study isn't applicable to the A's situation because unlike the Niners, the A's are staying in the same county. Assuming that both the new ballpark and football stadium end up publicly-owned, there would be no new property taxes associated with either facility. Sales taxes on materials used in construction could be beneficial, but that depends on whether Wolff is aiming for a rebate or waiver, which can't be ruled out.

A place like Blackhawk, where many athletes are known to live, is equidistant from both the Coliseum and the Cisco Field site based on driving distances. So it's likely that Billy Beane (and, er, Joe Morgan) would stay there. Palo Alto would substitute for the Marina district. Santana Row would as well to a lesser extent. (Perhaps Stanley Burrell's old house in the Fremont hills is available.) In other words, not much impact from player and front office relocations - especially if any relocations happen within Alameda County.

Of course, studies of this type generally don't take a macro view. They're designed to convince specific elected officials and placate their constituents. Due to the complexity of the ballpark village concept, I expect the Wolff study to have a slightly different tenor, such as highlighting positive indirect impact while accentuating how the project won't affect the public coffers. The Niners, who are seeking public funding of some kind, stayed far away from any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

Splash hits in HD

The Giants unveiled their new scoreboard/video board just in time for the start of the season, and even on video it looks impressive. The new board is the centerpiece of several tweaks to AT&T Park, including the new ultra-premium Lexus Dugout Club. The new club has 108 padded seats with extra leg room and a dozen 17-inch LCD screens lining the backstop.

At 31' high x 103' long, the board is four times the size of one of the current Diamond Vision boards at the Coliseum. Combine the Coliseum's two video board and monochrome scoreboard sets, and you get about the same amount of display space. Boy has technology changed to make that display space more dramatic!

The lineup and defensive displays are decent, along with the designated video space above the line score. The line score itself looks quite small though I'm sure it's quite legible. I'll have to check it out in person to know for sure. The sponsorship nods on the lower corners are well-sized and out of the way. There are parts of the display that look a bit contrasty, so I imagine that colors and fonts will undergo tweaks to find a happy medium. I'd prefer to see a screen or two that looks like the front and back of a baseball card, if only for nostalgia's sake. There should be a sponsorship available from Upper Deck or Topps if someone works the phones.

---

Update 12:00 AM: As I expected, there were complaints about the legibility of certain display items, such as statistics in the lineup. The tweaks may come early.

Show me the money, Niners

I was going to compare the San Francisco and Santa Clara 49ers stadium concepts in this space, but I'll refrain because Ann Killion's column in the Merc captures my thinking almost exactly. For the the Niners it all comes down to one question: How does it get financed? Very little of the information released about the two sites talks about who pays for what. I don't think this is the 49ers hiding anything, I think they simply don't know.

Maybe they're looking for a ginormous loan from the NFL, such as the one approved on Tuesday by the owners for the $1.7 billion Giants/Jets stadium. The previous debt limit imposed on teams that applied for the league's G-3 stadium loan program was $150 million. How much would the 49ers need above that initial amount? The $200 million being sought from Santa Clara's utility reserve? More?

The San Francisco plan doesn't shed anymore light, though to be fair it was conceived by the City and developer Lennar with little input from the team. In the proposal, there's no mention of financing either, except that the City vows not to tap the General Fund to make the stadium alternative work.

There's a good deal of optimism coming from 49er headquarters, but there isn't much substance to back it up. Even though Lew Wolff hasn't yet published the A's plans, at least he's given some indication as to what he plans to do, and has backed it up with land acquisitions and the Cisco partnership. In Santa Clara, the tide is already starting to turn against the stadium proposal with the release of data showing potential rate hikes if the Niners go with the reserve fund. They need to get control of the situation. Stat.

Glenn Dickey's Examiner Column

So what we have here is your garden variety shoot first, ask questions later piece from a well-respected, longtime sports columnist. It does little to inform fans about the process, and frankly does a disservice to its readers. But what do I know? I'm a mere blogger.

Dickey takes a little swipe at Fremont for being "not really a city but a collection of small towns," and attributes that characteristic to the lack of progress in extending BART south. Followers of the WSX and BART-to-SV extensions know that Fremont's size has little to do with it. Both projects were packaged contingent upon funding happening in Santa Clara County. No one city has sufficient enough clout to extend BART, not San Francisco, Oakland, Antioch, Livermore, Fremont, or San Jose.

Then Dickey starts with the "bait-and-switch" possibility:

A’s managing partner Lew Wolff had made proximity to a BART line a condition for a new site in Oakland. When he announced his preferred Oakland site, across 66th Avenue from the Coliseum, he insisted that a new BART station must be built there.

Now, the official word from the A’s is that a BART station nearby is not a requirement for the new site.

What’s going on here?

It's simple. The BART station condition was based on the idea that the ballpark would be in Oakland. Last time I checked, Fremont was not within Oakland city limits. As the stadium site moves south, it draws different demographics. Since much of the new demographic is going to be South Bay residents who don't have the privilege of a having a nearby BART station, BART obviously won't be a requirement for them. It's the South Bay contingent that's expected to make up for much of the lost BART-based fans.

Let's take a look at Dickey's primary argument:

Never forget that Wolff has made his money in real estate. His projects have included much of what has been built in downtown San Jose.

The projected baseball park in Fremont would be part of a much larger real estate project, including retail and housing. To build that, Wolff needs to get zoning changes. The lure of a new park will certainly be enough to get those changes.

I believe that, having got the zoning changes and started his real estate project, Wolff will then announce that it really isn’t feasible to build a new park there.

And then, the bidding will begin from cities eager to get the A’s.

I'll keep bringing this up until I'm blue in the face: Fremont's control of the zoning is their leverage. Why on earth would they approve the land development deal without the ballpark? They're not interested in changing the city's charter and adding residents without new revenue streams to go with it. Fremont's angle is keeping the entertainment dollar in the city. Accepting separate plans for the housing and ballpark village kills their leverage. The entire project has to be submitted with all parts included, otherwise environmental and economic impact studies can't be done properly. In the end Fremont has to certify the studies associated with the project to let it proceed. If it doesn't, Wolff is stuck with a bunch of land in South Fremont that isn't appreciating much.

If Wolff wanted to play the normal stadium extortion game, he'd have done what the Marlins have foolishly done in Miami, destroying all goodwill with the community even after two World Series titles in a decade. Or easier yet, he'd have simply announced the A's were going to move to Vegas while mayor Oscar Goodman still was interested and not jaded from being used by other teams' owners and Bud Selig. Portland had a better chance to be in play when Wolff first took over the team. San Antonio has felt the sting as much as Las Vegas. It's only getting more expensive to build a ballpark anywhere with each passing year. And Wolff's not getting any younger.

What about the Cisco angle? Why would Cisco sign its name so early to a plan that could become a PR nightmare if Wolff decides to pull a bait-and-switch job? Cisco could have easily waited until the A's moved, began construction, and started taking bids for naming rights. That would've been pain-free. Instead, Cisco is a partner in this venture, and not just because the ballpark would be a tech showcase. Cisco wants to be cool like Valley cohorts Google and Apple, and it won't get there backing something that isn't substantive.

Still not convinced? Wolff submitted the Quakes/SJSU stadium proposal last week, and guess what - it looks similar in some ways to the Cisco Field concept. The financing plan involves rezoning of industrial land and turning profits from home development into funding for the stadium. Now if Wolff had the Giants' territorial rights over turned it's likely he'd have used the same rezoning plan as part of a downtown San Jose ballpark project. Since territorial rights aren't getting changed anytime soon, it makes more sense to use try to pitch it for the Quakes' stadium effort.

Sadly, there'll be conspiracy theorists who'll continue to shake their fists until the first fan walks through a Cisco Field turnstile. I can't blame Wolff for not worrying about convincing them. There's little he can do about it other than build the ballpark. Even then, many of them won't come.

SJ Giants Exit, Enter SJ A's?

Last November we discussed how the A's move to Fremont might affect the San Jose Giants. The move would invoke baseball's Rule 52, which requires consent by or compensation for a team whose territory has been encroached. Now it appears that a decision is about to be made. With no likelihood for the $8 million being sought by the Giants' owners to renovate San Jose Municipal Stadium, the state of the ballpark forces their hand. Both the SJ and SF Giants have wanted Muni to be upgraded for some time, though neither wants to foot much of the bill for it.

The SJ Giants are approaching their 20th year in existence, the longest continuous tenure of any team in San Jose. Over those two decades they've cultivated a small, devoted fanbase while showcasing *ahem* a few future SF Giants. Should the team move there will be a void that a major league team can't quite fill. Minor league baseball has an intimacy and pace that can't be captured at a major league park.

Don't cry too much for the SJ Giants' owners. Even one of the majority owners, Dick Beahrs, admits that "If the team moved elsewhere, I think you can make an argument that economically it makes sense, but we wouldn't be getting together on Thursdays in July to watch a game together." The owners will certainly be well-compensated. There's still a movement afoot for a team in the North Bay, which certainly sounds like a natural fit once the Bay Area baseball realignment has begun. The fans, however, won't receive much solace.

As it stands, the A's are still early in a relationship with new high-A affliate Stockton. The Ports play in a shiny new riverfront ballpark of their own, and it's difficult to envision that arrangement changing. The A's did operate two high-A franchises in early Beane era, so who's to say that can't happen again? Consider this:

The A's could bring SJ Muni into the SJSU-Earthquakes project, which makes sense because it's the same part of town. The A's, Quakes, and San Jose partner on Muni renovation, which would benefit the A's and San Jose (good PR), and SJSU (updated facility). While the Giants' tradition would leave, a new one could start for the A's. Stockton's market isn't threatened by a team in central San Jose. Bay Area fans would have an even greater opportunity to see A's draftees matriculate through the farm system - which tends to pay more dividends than the Giants'.

If the concept sounds bizarre, keep this in mind: One of the first sports teams Lew Wolff invested in was the late 70's San Jose Missions. Wolff has experience with the minors. The Mets and Yankees both have short-season teams in the five boroughs (Coney Island and Staten Island, respectively).

Of course, there are business reasons for not having a minor league club in San Jose. San Jose is already full of non-major league sports franchises that compete against each other (Sabercats, Stealth), and having a baseball team would dilute the market. A baseball team would also compete with the parent A's to an extent, and certainly with the Quakes for the budget sports dollar. Also, how would pro-MLB San Jose partisans feel about such a move? Would they consider it patronizing? I'd like to see the A's preserve minor league baseball for the multitude of reasons described above, but it requires some scratch and someone else to operate the team, and the economics may not allow such a situation to occur.