NFL to LA: Who has the advantage?

Picture your regular poker night. For me, the routine usually includes the consumption of craft brews and single malt scotch, followed by the near immediate loss of money. It's a familiar scene, practiced nightly in homes all over the country.

Now imagine that scene with a bunch of multi-millionaires and billionaires sitting around the table. For some, their chips are the controlling shares of their respective teams. Another player has a stadium site and resources as his buy-in. They're all playing a single hand. Some will fold early. Others will stay in a little longer. Someone will win, but he won't win everything, just as the big winner in poker night doesn't win all of the money. Someone else will do pretty well in the second spot, and someone will go home unsatisfied.

This analogy works best when considered in this context: No one has started playing yet and no one's desperate. It's important to remember this when trying to analyze the situation and then predict how it's going to play out. For now, owners say the right things about staying in their current cities. The guy dangling a carrot in LA wants to deal with teams on his terms, instead of making the first deal that becomes available. Once you take this into account, and then factor in all of the different players and their unique situations, it becomes clear that the only prediction to make at this time is that we will probably be wrong.

Let's look at the players to try to get an understanding about how they'll do things. First, the team owners. I mentioned previously that these teams are not desperate. When a team is guaranteed $107 million in TV money every year, it's clear that it can financially tread water until the next CBA at the very least. The NFL has even girded its loins by creating its own rainy day fund in case of a labor stoppage. The only instance in which an owner would get to that point of desperation would be that he was either so debt-ridden or lost so much money in the last year that it made "liquidating" the team a necessity. No current owner fits that description.

• Al Davis (potentially Mark Davis), Raiders. The team has been sniffing around the East Bay for a possible site, first by properly working with the Coliseum Authority, then by hiking out to Dublin to see if they were interested (they weren't). Crossbay rivals have shown interest in a shared facility, but so far the Raiders clearly haven't. That leads some to deduce that LA is the next logical step, except that logic does not necessarily apply in the franchise's movement history - why should it now? Al spent over three decades wresting control of the franchise from others. It's very difficult to see him allowing his family to piss away controlling interest in the team in one stroke. The team clearly has the advantage of an existing fanbase in SoCal. That may actually work against them in a sense, as LA investors may be more interested in bringing in a less difficult brand to town. For the time being, Al and Co. have done the best job of keeping their cards close to the vest.
  
• John & Jed York, 49ers. One of the problems that doesn't get mentioned much is that the Yorks are from Youngstown, OH, which from a cultural bonding standpoint is as far away from the Bay Area you can get without having a drawl (John actually has one). Jed's young urbanite image makes him more approachable than his dad, though there remain questions about whether or not the prince can handle the job. When compared to Ray Ratto's musings about Mark Davis, there's no doubt that Jed wants the throne. Like the Raiders, the Niners have been sniffing around SF and Santa Clara, with the potential for options elsewhere in the Peninsula (Brisbane). Unlike the Raiders, the Niners have publicly shown interest in staying indefinitely through either an extension at the 'Stick or one of the new stadium options.
• Ralph Wilson, Bills. The 90 year old has scared fans in western New York by scheduling the occasional game in Toronto. Rogers Centre is too small to be a permanent NFL facility, and the Bills sell Ralph Wilson Stadium out consistently despite its small market status and inconsistent on-field performances. They're getting over $7 million in annual subsidies from Erie County. They still get over 70,000 for each home game. A move would send thousands upon thousands of Bills fans to Niagara Falls in order to plummet to their demise. Now, it is true that if a team could be snatched from Baltimore or Cleveland, it could also happen to Buffalo. No argument there. It's just that no one's really getting hurt by the team remaining in Buffalo as it rides out the recession, so it makes more sense to stay away from the possible PR nightmare that would be associated with a Bills move.
• Zygi Wilf, Vikings. Like the previouslly mentioned owners, Wilf's not a local. He's from New Jersey. All of his attempts to get a stadium deal done so far have fallen miserably short, as the Vikes missed the cut to get financing along with the Twins and UofM football program. Comments likening the Vikes' stadium project to federal stimulus were inappropriate. Options are simply running out. That could put him on the fast track to LA or to sell to someone else who could move the team to LA. Of the teams with uncertain stadium futures, Wilf is the least tenured. He has the least pull in his home market. Who knows if threats to "throw in the towel" are real or not, by verbalizing such sentiments the Vikes are going to this part of the playbook before anyone else.
• Wayne Weaver, Jaguars. Occasionally when we talk football on the blog, someone brings up the prospect of having a team play in the Central Valley, either Sacramento or Fresno. The idea is that the large Central Valley population should be sufficent enough to support a NFL franchise. The short schedule would seem to support this since there's less individual financial outlay compared to baseball. Jacksonville, however, is a prime argument against the idea. Its metro is 1.4 million, though it is a high-growth market. Weaver isn't entirely a local boy, but he moved the Jacksonville shortly after he was awarded the Jags. Recently, Weaver dismissed any LA talk, though the door may be open now that an option has materialized.
• Alex & Dean Spanos, Chargers. Again, here's a case of a team being passed to an heir. Dean Spanos is supposedly buddies with LA's Ed Roski, but the Spanos family doesn't want to sell controlling interest. Meanwhile, the Bolts' efforts to get something going in Chula Vista have stalled. LA would appear to be a very convenient move for them. After all, the team was originally the Los Angeles Chargers. The family has more firmly planted roots in Stockton, not San Diego. Slam dunk, right? Well, the numbers show that the Bolts don't have to commit to anything right away. Of course, they'd want to make a move before another team does. Perhaps the process will give the Chargers first dibs. Then again, Al Davis may have something to say about that. Update: Looks like the Bolts just made the first move by hiring LA marketing firm Wasserman Media Group to expand the team's reach into LA and Orange County.
  

That leaves the last guy at the table, the "outsider," Ed Roski. Roski's no stranger to sports, LA real estate, or politics. He has a small city with an approved EIR as his pocket aces. He can wait everyone else out if he wants. He can send out signals that end up playing interested teams against each other - not the NFL's preferred modus operandi, but still possible. It would look like a reversal of the Montreal Expos' move to DC, in which several candidate cities whined and dined MLB prior to the league showing the whole process to be a farce.

One thing that could dramatically alter the game would be the imposition of a deadline, especially in LA. I don't expect this to happen as I'm certain the NFL and Roski have an unspoken understanding about how this should proceed. If one or more city-team relationships deteriorate, there could be some nudging towards desperation, though it wouldn't be an overriding factor. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. In the end, there will be a clear loser in the city whose team leaves. The clear winner? The NFL, even if a team never moves to LA.

Note: I'm leaving out some additional teams who have made noises, such as the Saints and Rams. They would need to show renewed, consistent efforts (and failure) towards securing a new stadium deal to enter discussion.

NFL encourages Niners and Raiders to shack up

This isn't difficult, folks. NFL stadia are expensive, at least twice as much as MLB ballparks due to all of the associated costs. It makes sense for both teams in a two-team market to explore ways the mitigate cost. Carl Goldberg of the NJ Sports & Exposition Authority says it best:

"It's unreasonable to think that each of these individual franchises would be able to invest the billion dollars necessary to build a new stadium alone," said Carl Goldberg, chairman of the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, which owns the land under the new Jets-Giants stadium. "The whole thing seems to be a horrible waste. Let's not forget that they only play 10 games per year per franchise. Doesn't it make more sense to build a better facility, with better fan appeal and a better fan experience, for both teams?"

This is not rocket science. It makes sense. It won't destroy the "legacies" of the two teams if done correctly.

Update 1/26 9:42 a.m.: Per Hal Ramey's interview with Jed York (via John Ryan's article), the 49ers have dropped their request for redevelopment funds from $130-160 million to $28-45 million. Part of this reduction may have come from certain parts of the project being left aside, such as movement of the onsite PG&E substation (funny how that's a recurring theme). Movement of the stadium to the overflow parking site just across the street from team headquarters would allow them to forego the substation move. From the beginning I've advocated this option because simply put, the overflow lot doesn't get much use. The original plan had the stadium on a lot immediately north of the Great America entrance, which made little sense (especially for Cedar Fair).

The rest of the reduction could be attributed to lower construction costs. I've heard figures of contracts going for 20% lower right now as opposed to this time last year. This drop could last as long as the recession or longer, so teams looking to build, such as the A's and Niners, should feel sufficiently spurred on by the prospect of a less expensive stadium.

Updated Diridon South map

Apologies to readers for getting this out later than expected.

The red parcel is the one remaining to be purchased that would be integral to building a ballpark. It is the site of Aeris Gas, which provides welding supplies and specialty gases. The location was formerly named ARC Gas Products, and over the years has merged with other Northern California locations to form Aeris. Last fall, national supplier Matheson Tri-Gas acquired Aeris. When the Diridon South site became a discussion topic in 2005, this business was considered one of the more difficult to relocate due to its specialized equipment and facilities. A move could be quite expensive. Will the city be forced to use eminent domain to acquire the land?

The blue parcels are only to be used to accommodate the widening of Autumn Street into Autumn Parkway. One of those blue parcels, the CarQuest Auto Parts store, is already vacant. Combined, the land is adjacent to Los Gatos Creek. In conjunction with the Autumn Parkway project, the creation of a greenbelt between the creek and the street would appear to be in order.

San Jose apparently has $22 million set aside for acquiring the remaining land. That would appear to be sufficient from a market value standpoint since the total amount of land is around 3 acres, and values at their 2006 peak were $7-8 million per acre - and have definitely dropped in the past 6 months.

There remains the issue of relocating the PG&E substation. The 2006 estimate for moving it south one block was $30 million.

Don't want San Jose info? Then don't read this.

Over the past few weeks, I had been working on a lot of San Jose-related material, after sensing a tidal shift. While I'm not counting out Fremont, I'm also not nearly as optimistic about it as I had been at this time last year. The real estate market and the retail economy make prospects difficult at Pacific Commons, and Warm Springs has myriad issues of its own. So I started going into my San Jose archives, as there was so much detail there that I needed a refresher. This is the first of many posts to explain what the San Jose option is and what it represents. Keep in mind that while San Jose is considered by many in the media to be one of the commish's "other communities," no official outreach has been made by the A's to San Jose.

Fortunately, Katherine Conrad at the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal has already taken care of some of the background work that I had scheduled for myself. In her piece on San Jose's readiness should the A's attentions move south, she pointed out that only a few acres remain of the Diridon South ballpark site to be purchased. SJ Redevelopment project manager Bill Ekern noted that the city "assembled about 12 acres of the 14-acre site needed for a ballpark."

I sent requests to both Conrad and Ekern to find out which parcels remained to be purchased. Conrad responded, saying that she had a map and would furnish it tomorrow. I'll update the maps below accordingly once I get the info. In the meantime, here's an overhead view to get you (re)acquainted with the area.

Diridon Station (Caltrain) is one of only two real, multi-modal transit hubs in the South Bay (the other is Mountain View). While BART will brings additional hubs, Diridon is set to become one of the most heavily used transit hubs in the nation with the promise of BART, increased Caltrain service post-electrification, and high speed rail. That's in addition to Amtrak, Capitol Corridor, ACE, plus VTA light rail and bus service. For a better sense of what the area might look like once HSR is up and running, check out the video below, put together by the CAHSR Authority. The point-of-view is from the new neighborhood to the west of the tracks, with the camera moving north along the tracks. At the midpoint of the video, the northern edge of the ballpark site is visible to the right.



The parcels are laid out in a sort of jigsaw puzzle look. I'll add another map identifying the parcels that have been acquired and remain to be acquired. The grey areas are Autumn and Montgomery Streets, important one-way thoroughfares through the area. The city already has plans to convert Autumn into two-way, four-lane Autumn Parkway, which will eventually connect north up to Coleman Ave. Currently, Autumn Street dead-ends at the Union Pacific tracks north of HP Pavilion. The project has already been identified by SJ Mayor Chuck Reed as one his leading long-term stimulus construction projects.

Conrad's article also clarifies an important point regarding the EIR. Minor modifications would require an affirmation of traffic and noise impacts. This would incur a comment period, which would subsequently bring out of the woodwork many of the initial critics of the ballpark plan and EIR. In 2006, the EIR was certified with little fanfare or complaint because the Fremont plan was in its initial, positive stages. Many down here felt the EIR was a lost cause, albeit smart for the city to keep it in its back pocket. Should the A's officially focus on San Jose, those same parties who felt threatened in a vague way will be spurred on since they'll probably feel threatened in a real, specific way. That's not to say that the outcry back then (or in the future) is anything like what Warm Springs residents are unleashing upon Fremont. Sometime in the next several weeks I'll rehash the EIR and my observations about the process.

City of Industy voters approve NFL stadium bonds

Ed Roski and the city of Industry has now created a lot of intrigue for several NFL teams looking for new stadia and their current home cities. Industry's voters approved 60-1 (out of only 84 registered voters) a package of up to $500 million in infrastructure bonds to support Ed Roski's dream of a new NFL stadium on a hill within the city limits.

While the city isn't actively seeking out any specific NFL teams (or vice-versa), Industry has now thrust itself into official stalking horse position. Four teams currently have outdated facilities: SF, Oakland, San Diego, and Minnesota. Jacksonville is often mentioned, though its facility is actually up-to-date. Its problem is its small market status.

The sticking point is likely to be which owner is willing to sell controlling interest of the team to Roski and his partners. The Raiders and 49ers have shown no interest in doing this. Chargers exec Dean Spanos and Roski are often cited as friends, but Spanos maintains that he wants to keep the team in San Diego (for now). Vikes owner Zygi Wilf just bought the team a few years ago and probably doesn't want to sell unless he runs out of options. Jacksonville is the fourth-largest market in Florida, though it is growing.

Wolff rules out City of Santa Clara

Not sure why the Merc's Internal Affairs even brought this up. They bothered to ask Lew Wolff if he'd be interested in the City of Santa Clara as a future home, given the Selig letter. As I mentioned on Wednesday, there isn't enough room for the A's, 49ers, and Great America. The 49ers and Santa Clara are committed to seeing their project through to this November's election. A ballpark would require a new EIR whether it were alone or paired with a football stadium. If, hypothetically, Santa Clara County were opened up this summer, Santa Clara the city would be at an immediate disadvantage compared to San Jose. It would have one distinct advantage in that it already controls land under consideration for a stadium. San Jose only has half of the Diridon South site.

Warm Springs now 1A, Pacific Commons 1B

Matthew Artz at the Argus/Tri-City Beat blog confirmed something I had heard last week: Warm Springs is now the preferred Fremont option. Pacific Commons is now the "alternative." This has to be due to the continued lack of progress on the Catellus/big box front.

Update: New article here.

Let's be clear about what Warm Springs brings to the table. Its only real advantage over Pacific Commons is its proximity to the future BART extension. That's it. Pacific Commons is better as an integrated project. It's less expensive because it doesn't require additional land acquisitions. We can debate all day whether who's the more difficult party to win over, the big box stores or Warm Springs residents. It's not an enviable position for the A's to be in, which is why the commish is giving the green light for Wolff to explore elsewhere.

For those who believe Sacramento is that elsewhere, here's a preemptive no.

More great A's announcements + BART to WS

Future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson has been hired in a "goodwill capacity" for the 2009 season. While nothing would tickle me more than to have Rickey as a 1B/3B/bench coach, this is at least a good start. Yes, I would like to see him don an A's uniform one last time if that's at all possible.

Continuing their expansion into radio, the A's have also announced that they've inked a five-year (!) deal with the Spanish Beisbol Network. All 162 games will be broadcast on two stations locally, KDIA-1640 and KDYA-1190. It's a very big deal as this breadth of coverage of the A's season on Spanish radio is unprecedented. Veteran broadcaster Amaury Pi-Gonzalez will handle the play-by-play duties, with the color man to be announced at a later date. Interestingly, Pi-Gonzalez's last gig was with the Angels in 2007.

The MTC has approved shuffling $91 million of local transporation funds from the Dumbarton Rail project to the Warm Springs BART extension. It's yet another crucial step towards the eventual raping and pillaging of South Fremont due to BART's criminal element full extension to San Jose.

Look South

And so it begins. Two stories, one from the AP and another by MLB.com reporter Barry M. Bloom, start off in familiar territory. Commissioner Selig wants resolution of the Fremont situation, as stated in his December letter, and if Fremont falls through the A's "may begin to discuss a ballpark with other communities."

If this were your standard procedural cop show, Selig would be filling the role of bad cop while Wolff is the good cop. Wolff remains committed to making Fremont work, though opposition on different fronts remains daunting.

Bloom's article goes further, as in further south in Santa Clara County. He broaches the prickly subject that is territorial rights and sheds a bit of light on the process:

Thus, if the A's want to move into Santa Clara County, it would be a decision made by the Commissioner and not by the Giants, who were ceded the rights to Santa Clara County during a ballpark vote there about 20 years ago. The vote failed, but the Giants have maintained those territorial rights ever since.

"What we've done, I think, is open up a door for the A's that's been closed," said Wolff on Wednesday, the first day of this week's two days of owners' meetings here. "My priority really is Fremont. Other communities are all over us now because of this letter, but I'm not listening to them yet. I don't want to start this process all over again."

It would appear rather convenient, then, that San Jose (presumably one of those "other communities") has a completed and certified EIR which makes the process there much less painful than what's transpired so far in Fremont. Wolff is careful not to point blame at Fremont's city council.

Curiously, Bloom's article is headlined "Door opens for A's in Santa Clara." Is that an inference to a ballpark deal being possible in the city of Santa Clara? We don't know yet. Bloom only refers to Santa Clara County, not the city. There are some in Santa Clara who believe that it's possible for both a 49ers stadium and an A's ballpark to fit side-by-side near Great America. Santa Clara has to worry about the Niners' situation first before imposing any new concepts on its citizens. FWIW, I don't think there's enough room for the Niners, A's, and the theme park to operate in the same sandbox. Two of them, yes.

What is Lew going to say at the Chamber breakfast event on February 11? Sometimes I think Lew's playing this like Andy Dufresne at Shawshank, everyday carving out bits of stone wall unbeknownst to the guards and the warden, then distributing them in the prison yard.

M&R: 49ers may stay in the 'Stick

Matier and Ross report that the Niners, should their efforts to get a stadium in Santa Clara falter or slip, are prepared to re-up at the 'Stick for 5, 10, or even 15 years.

Candlestick Park still works reasonably well as a barebones football stadium. No seats are insanely high. Other that a few obstructed view seats, it's a decent place to watch a game and can generate some serious noise. With the Giants gone, the 49ers don't have to worry about linemen struggling through muck caused by the baseball infield (drought helps too).

Despite those positives, the 'Stick is the oldest pro stadium in the Bay Area and it shows. Escalators are frequently in a state of disrepair. The team facilities have been mediocre since the 80's. Concourses are cramped. Breezes whip through there as if the stadium were located on Tierra del Fuego. There are no club seats. The luxury suites are a bit dated. And it's a real pain to get from the press box down to the field or locker rooms.

The plan, then, is to do a major remodel:

Already, the team is working up designs for a new club area with premium seating that could be introduced the season after next.

But there may be more to it than that. Lang confirmed that the Niners are looking at the possibility of a major remodel of the 'Stick - an option they had previously rejected as far too costly.

"We are running the numbers again because things have changed," Lang said. It seems that with the economic downturn, rehabbing the stadium might not be as expensive as once thought.

In December, new team President Jed York met with Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell and hinted that - depending on the outcome of their efforts in Santa Clara - he might come back to the city in three to six months to talk about a Candlestick rehab.

Dufty said he was under the impression they weren't talking about the kind of massive makeover that Chicago's Soldier Field got, "but something that might be north of $100 million."

In other words, the kind of fix-up that could keep the stadium operating for an extra 15 years - long enough to pay for itself and carry the Niners through their last lease extension option.

We've seen this kind of remodel before. It's called Mt. Davis. To be fair, Mt. Davis was the construction of a completely separate, three-deck grandstand with nearly 100 suites. A 'Stick revamp need not be so extensive. It would pretty simple to remove the pullout stands on the east side and the old rightfield line sections that are no longer in use. In their place could be an extensive club seating tier (or two) plus a lounge/restaurant/atrium area.

If the Niners and SF do it right, they could correct one of the weird quirks of the old girl. The odd oval shape of the seating bowl created a situation in which no seat is lined up parallel to either sideline or end line, and few seats are properly angled at the center of the field. In the remodel, the field could be properly lined up parallel to the western side of the bowl. Then the club seats could also be built in the same parallel manner.

The problem? Who's going to pay for it?

Wolff to speak at SJ Chamber event 2/11

It's not on the calendar yet, but I have confirmed that Lew Wolff will speak at a San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce event in February. The specifics:

A's and Earthquakes: Plans for 2009?
with Lew Wolff
Wednesday, February 11, 7:30-9:30 AM
@ Adobe Systems
Park Conference Room
345 Park Ave., San Jose

Online registration will be available shortly, and will be open until February 6.

Speculate away.

A reminder about San Jose

I'm confirming a big piece of San Jose-related news today. In preparation for that, here's a clip of San Jose's Municipal Code (link dead) related to building sports facilities within the city limits:

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

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

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

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

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

More later.

Uncomfortable positions

Effects from the economic crisis are hitting everyone, including wealthy team owners. Bruce Ratner has been forced to scale back value engineer his Brooklyn arena vision. The Yankees are looking for $370 million to "finish" New Yankee Stadium. Locally, talks of the Niners and Raiders teaming up to get a stadium done together may have started up.

Wait a minute. Haven't we heard that last rumor before? Indeed we have, about this time last year. And we're going to continue to hear this every year as both teams' seasons end unceremonious early while their stadium destinies hang in the balance. We have no idea if there are any substantive discussions. We don't know what it will take for the two teams to arrive at a proper compromise. Finally, we have no clue which muncipality out there would be interested in playing matchmaker, though I suspect that certain Santa Clara pols might be. The stadium architect may also have to play intermediary, as 360 architecture's George Heinlein did with the New Meadowlands Stadium. Sure, it makes sense. It's not, however, without its issues. As long as LA remains a tantalizing option for both teams (and the Bolts, Jags, and Vikes) there may be little progress on this front.

---

Back in Fremont, Warm Springs residents want details on the WS site alternative. That request is going to be difficult to fill, as the A's aren't going to purchase area land until they know there is a clear path to getting the ballpark approved. That means just about any of the WS parcels could be used for the ballpark, making it a little more difficult to spell out precisely all of the potential impacts. Sound a bit chicken-and-egg-ish? It is. In the meantime, A's and stadium supporters are going to hold a series of koffee klatches with affected residents starting this week.

The plan is to enact a "Neighborhood Protection Plan" that works in a two-way manner. Not only does it prevent stadium users from driving from the stadium area to the residential area, it also prevents anyone from using back roads into the residential area from parking and then walking to the stadium area. The plan is helped by the street grid, in which there are limited access points to the Weibel neighborhood on the opposite side of 680 (so named because of the area elementary school). It remains to be seen how residents will react to the plan and the additional inconvenience that may come with it.

Some residents south of the stadium site (Warm Springs/Mission) are more concerned about the single north-south artery between 680 and 880, Warm Springs Blvd., being clogged on game days. Only the traffic study will have any real answers, as it will probably take into account situations in which normal traffic flows and signaling can be compared with gameday situations in which police will be called upon to control traffic.

What next? We're about a month away from the next City Council meeting to review the plan. Until then, stay tuned.

KTRB wants to add North Bay/Sac coverage

I received a note this morning from Jim Pappas, KTRB's VP and GM. The station has FCC and FAA approval to construct a new transmitter in Sonoma County. The 50,000-watt facility would seriously augment coverage in the North Bay and Sacramento. By now you've seen the existing coverage map:

The new Sonoma Daytime transmitter map (exclusive of existing transmitter) looks like this:

Much better, right? It is a Daytime transmitter, and Nighttime operation is in the works as well, though it would come later (application with the FCC already on file). For those who believe in miracles, don't expect the transmitter to be ready in time for Opening Day. It's not like building a skyscraper in terms of complexity, but it's still quite tall and requires proper preparation and testing. Maybe before the end of the season. The deal between the A's and KTRB is only for one season, but this gives you an indication of where both parties would like the relationship to go. Both want to be serious Bay Area radio players, and they want to do it together.

This is where you come in. Construction of the transmitter is wholly dependent on approval by Sonoma County's Board of Zoning Adjustments. KTRB is ready to build pending approval. The transmitter has not yet come up for review by the BZA. When it does, KTRB will draft to request fan support. I'll post it here. The board usually meets twice a month, and like the EIR process in Fremont, it is open to public comment. You can go to the meeting at 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA, 95403, or send written comments to that address.

A's move to KTRB

In a move that should delight listeners all over the bay, the A's are moving to 50,000-watt KTRB-AM 860. KTRB's transmitter is located in the Diablo Range east of Sunol, which is a big improvement over the three transmitter locations it used two years ago. Check out the maps below for a better idea of the service area.

Day:

Night:

See any difference there? I don't. That's a good thing for both the A's and A's fans.

KTRB's programming is a mishmash of talk, with high profile slots taken by syndicated conservative hosts such as Glenn Beck and Neal Boortz. Bay Area veteran Ron Barr has his sportstalk show in the 7-10 slot, which would be pre-empted by most of the A's weeknight games and related pregame and postgame shows. Ironically, the partnership with KTRB is the first time in years that the A's will be on a station with compatible sports programming.

Readers, I'd much appreciate if you could at some point during the day flip on your AM radios and tune to 860. Then drop a comment and let me know how the signal comes in, specifying your location. Thanks.

Another slice of Raiders may be for sale

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports that the Raiders are in talks to sell at least 10% of team to a group of LA-based investors. As usual, Raider management has steadfastly denied the rumor.

The real issue here is that of controlling interest of the team, which has been in Al Davis's hands for more than three decades. It's difficult to see Davis as a figurehead given his penchant for meddling in everything from personnel moves and gameplans to stadium deals, even with his somewhat advanced age and health concerns.

Unfortunately for Davis, he doesn't hold many cards. The chances of Davis getting a stadium deal in the LA area without ceding control are slim. The NFL's G3 loan program has dried up and talk of a new fund has been tabled as the league bundles up for a cold economic winter. There are no Irwindales out there willing to give him a fat check, and the only stadium deal on the horizon is Ed Roski's plan in City of Industry, which would be privately financed. Roski, according to the LA Times, is quietly pursuing a team. Couple that with Roger Goodell's curious December visit to Oakland, and it would appear that something is happening behind the scenes.

While Roski and his SoCal cohorts get their affairs in order, talks continue between the Raiders, Oakland, and the Coliseum Authority. Of course, if Davis needed a cash infusion to keep the team going, how would he have the cash needed to get a Coliseum revamp or new stadium started?

Our two local NFL teams are in a similar position economically. They won't admit it, but either would love the other to leave posthaste as it would help crystallize support for their own local stadium efforts. Yet they must both look at Roski's vision and see dollar signs. Both ownership groups want to hold on with a death grip, but may not be able to in order to move or even get a stadium deal done locally without ceding control. And both teams have been woefully mismanaged over the past decade. There's a race here, but I'm not sure what it's for.

Rays open ballpark site search

The AL champion Tampa Rays, in conjunction with a coalition called "A Baseball Community," released a two-part study (PDF: Part I/Part II) on seven possible future ballpark sites. The sites, all within St. Petersburg city limits, range from the downtown waterfront site upon which the Rays had previously planned a new ballpark to a 250-acre inactive landfill curiously named "Toytown." A map is available showing all seven sites:

• Tropicana Field - The sacrificial lamb, development of the current ballpark site has been offered up as a way to help pay for a new ballpark at Al Lang Field. A new concept has a ballpark co-existing with planned surrounding mixed-use development.
  
• Al Lang Field/Progress Energy Park - Concept rushed through during the spring, then quickly abandoned. Surprisingly, this site has the smallest population within a 30-minute drive of itself, only 539,312. That's less than the combined population of Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda. Or Fresno-Clovis. And that doesn't even include all of the communities within 30 minutes.
• Derby Lane - An old dog track and kennel. Biggest issue is that it's furthest removed from I-275, though it is close to Tampa by virtue of another bridge spanning Tampa Bay.
• Airco Golf Course - Has already been discounted due to its proximity to the St. Pete-Clearwater airport.
• Sod Farm - Developer Tarpon Ridge bought the site from the City in hopes of building a massive mixed-use development. The land remains undeveloped and could project to have the highest infrastructure costs.
• Carillon Town Center - May be in the best position right now. It also is part of a large-scale development plan but already has infrastructure in place. It's right off I-275 and is at the western approach to the Howard Franklin bridge, which means it's the closest to Tampa. The built-out nature of the complex provides fewer opportunities for ancillary development.
• Toytown - Landfill ceased activity in 1983 and closed completely in 1991. Leachate seeped into the water table in the mid-80's, this was controlled shortly thereafter. This site, just south of Carillon along I-275, appears to have the greatest amount of potential. Part of this is due to the incredibly low land cost: $10 million for 250 acres. However, anyone who buys it will be responsible for the massive remediation cost that will be required before a single pile can be driven. Hunters Point or O29, anyone?
  

The report is worth the read and could be considered an executive summary-type synopsis of what we normally see in California in our EIR/EIS documents.

Population is the real eyebrow-raiser here. The Carillon site has twice the in-radius population as Al Lang. Still, at 1.2 million, there remains a question of sustainability in the market. To put that in perspective, even that total is less than the population of Alameda County (1.45 million) and further less than Santa Clara County (1.7 million). Going with a smaller, cheaper ballpark regardless of site is a good move there.

Yankees reloaded: Time to revisit a salary cap?

Everyone saw it coming. The Bronx Bombers, who need to fill their new palace in 2009 every night and get back into the playoffs, had to make a big splash. So they made three in signing C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and M.C. Teixeira. Yes, we will now take our customary roles of railing against the Yanks and against the system. In these troubled economic times, it may feel a bit cathartic.

Way back in March 2006, when the economy was a wee bit healthier, I advocated for MLB to impose a salary cap. The twist would be that the cap talk shouldn't be initiated by the owners, but rather the players' union. I argued that the percentage of revenue the players received was inferior to that of the other three major sports, and that the players could be richer (on average) with a more equitably distributed system. Confirmation came last week, as it came out that MLB players as a whole received 52% of league revenues, compared to 59%, 57%, and 56.7% for NFL, NBA, and NHL players respectively.

Now I realize that the owners, whose laissez faire approach to baseball economics is practically out of the Ayn Rand playbook, have little interest in imposing new restrictions on their little confederacy. To show what those restrictions look like, here's a comparison of the four leagues and their team payroll models:

MLB does better than the mighty NFL without a salary cap. The 52% figure fits neatly within a range of 51-54% throughout the current CBA. If they're getting more out of their deal than the NFL, why would they want a cap? It may be that the only thing that could change their minds would be a sustained, massive drop in annual revenues. In such a scenario, the hardest hit teams would be the small market clubs. A sort of class warfare could ensue between the big and small market teams, but only if revenue sharing failed to shore up the have-nots' balance sheets. To date there's no evidence of such a problem. The only issue for the have-nots is their inability to compete, and as we've seen from the A's, Twins, and this year's Rays, they can compete for short periods if the franchises are run well. History has shown that a lack of competition isn't enough to cause serious tension in the ranks.

Both the NFL and NHL are headed for labor strife, albeit in different ways. In May NFL owners voted to opt out of the current CBA early, creating a situation in which the teams would operate without a salary cap in 2010 and perhaps 2011 - with a lockout even more likely in 2011. There's a good chance that if the NFL and NFLPA are unable to negotiate a new CBA, the hard cap seen in the NFL will be gone forever, to be replaced by something resembling either the NBA or MLB labor pacts. Four teams remain without new stadium deals, and small market teams like Cincinnati and Buffalo make $80 million less than their rich brethren in Dallas and Washington. Hockey, despite its post-lockout covenant, is facing a troubling economic future. Revenue growth, guaranteed contracts, and looming free agency have created a potentially toxic soup of unsustainable economic conditions. Some recent Sun Belt expansion teams are struggling to survive, bringing up talks of franchise relocation.

Hoops and hardball appear to be in good stead comparatively. David Stern has what he wants most in a post-Jordan era, the return of Lakers vs. Celtics - and don't think he won't pull strings to maintain the rivalry to its fullest. There's a similar Sun Belt expansion problem to that seen in the NHL, but it won't impact league health. Bud Selig had Bob DuPuy on the Marlins' ballpark talks like a flea on a dog, and all the attention appears to have paid off. Only two teams lack a new or upgraded stadium deal. You can bet that if Fremont doesn't pan out, Selig will send DuPuy out here to give the A's predicament the same treatment as Miami. Despite this, Selig can look at his counterpart Roger Goodell and think, "The only cap baseball needs is the kind worn on a head." For those of us looking for financial parity, that isn't an encouraging sentiment.

So here's the question for the day: If you could implement a salary cap in baseball, what would it look like? Feel free to be as brief or verbose as you like.

Mayor Wasserman steps in

In an effort to resolve the impasse between the A's and the big box triumvirate of Costco, Lowe's, and Kohl's, Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman spoke to the retailers last week. The A's were not directly involved in the discussions. Via Matthew Artz in the Argus's Tri City Beat blog:

Wasserman said he and ProLogis talked about a couple of proposals to put the stadium a little further from the stores, one idea would be to put it closer to Interstate 880, and the other further south from the stores, which, admittedly wouldn’t have the best freeway access.

The "closer to 880" option may be the simplest since it involves land the A's already own, particularly the 8-acre concrete plant next to the freeway. Then they'd have to redesign the village and residential areas to work with the new ballpark site. Integration of the village and the ballpark wouldn't be as good because the ballpark can't face west, which would be the best direction to have the ballpark face into the village as it does in the original plan.

Pushing the ballpark to the southern edge of the project area is likely a nonstarter for environmental reasons. The combination of light, noise, and a heavy supply of congealed nacho cheese sauce don't make for a healthy environment for all of the critters in the wetland preserve next door.

MLB Network

Are you looking for little baseball fix? If so, tune to Comcast Digital channel 412 or DirecTV channel 213. MLB Network is now broadcasting there in preparation for its official launch on New Year's Day. The programming is all pre-recorded, including season retrospectives for the most part.

I heard a while back that MLB worked out a deal to be carried on basic cable, but it appears that MLB Network will stay on 412 with the three sports networks (NBA TV, NFL Network, NHL Network) as part of the digital sports tier. DirecTV will carry HD broadcasts, while no Comcast appears to be a no go for now. MLBN is scheduled to broadcast Thursday night games and the World Baseball Classic.

Oakland's Poor Working Conditions

We've Lew Wolff and Steve Schott grouse about the age and condition of the Coliseum. The Furcal chase, however, may be the first time we've heard about someone actually complain about it. Ken Rosenthal wrote last night:

Upon learning that free-agent shortstop Rafael Furcal was deciding between the Dodgers and Braves, one prominent agent expressed sympathy for A's general manager Billy Beane and assistant GM David Forst, saying that they face an uphill fight trying to attract free agents to Oakland.

Furcal ended up choosing the Dodgers on Wednesday.

The A's rarely are major players in free agency, but the agent said that the poor working conditions and occasionally unruly crowd behavior at McAfee Coliseum are turnoffs for his clients.

"Many players are uncertain about the atmosphere," the agent said. "They're not as comfortable going to work there or having their families attend games there on a regular basis."

In 2012, the A's are scheduled to move into Cisco Field, which will be located approximately 20 miles south of McAfee in Fremont, Calif.

"That will help them recruit players," the agent said. "Billy and David are as good as anyone in the business. The new park will level the playing field for them and allow them to excel."

It's terribly unfair that one or two incidents many years back, and perhaps Raider fans' reputations, have given the Coliseum a bad rep. Of course, it could be said that when free agents tour the area, they might go through a sequence of events that doesn't really help matters:

• Fly into SFO or OAK
• Check into either Parc 55, Sir Francis Drake, or Four Seasons
  
• Have dinner/entertainment in SF
• Next morning, drive to Oakland
• Take tour of Coliseum
• Have lunch either on site or in downtown/JLS
• Head east to Danville/Blackhawk to look at homes
• Meet other players who live there if possible
• Wrap up
  

The only items that don't match the others are the "drive to Oakland" and "tour of Coliseum." When everything else looks pretty good by comparison, it's easy for those two to look not-so-good. It's probably less of a problem for young players. We've known of a few young players who've taken BART daily to the Coliseum. When you're a 32-year-old, injury prone player with a family looking for your last contract, it's a different story.

To be fair, Citizens Bank Park (and previously the Vet) is in the middle of a parking lot in South Philly. The Phils don't have trouble attracting free agents.

In the end, it's one more issue that Lew Wolff and Bud Selig can use as rationale for moving.

Oracle Arena lags behind HP Pavilion

Robert Gammon, who co-wrote the "Fremont Athletics" cover story in the East Bay Express two years ago, just finished a scathing analysis of Oracle Arena. It's been well known for some time that HP Pavilion gets more events, but on the surface it would appear that the two venues are otherwise on par. Gammon dug into an audit showing the ways Oracle Arena underperformed: non-aggressive management by SMG, less promoter-friendly labor terms, and ticket surcharges.

According to the audit, which was requested by the Golden State Warriors and completed last month, Oracle Arena has averaged just 99 events a year over the past three years, including 43 basketball games annually. By contrast, HP Pavilion drew 169 events last year alone, including San Jose Sharks hockey games. According to Pollstar, a concert industry publication, HP Pavilion ranked sixth in the world in 2007 among indoor arenas with 666,587 concert tickets sold. Oracle Arena ranked thirtieth, selling just about half as many tickets — 343,584 — even though it's slightly larger.

70 less events per year? That's astounding. It's not location, as concert promoters don't care where a venue is as long as it's large enough, equipped enough, cheap enough, and populated (market-wise) enough. Worse, those lost events are a drag on the Warriors, whose lease includes $7.4 million in premium seat revenue every year. Compare that to the Sharks/SVS+E, who are projected to pay $4.4 million to San Jose in 2008-09, and that figure is offset in part by the vastly higher number of events staged at the Pavilion. Gammon notes that the W's may be looking to throw SMG out and manage the arena themselves, thereby adopting the Sharks' business model.

The irony here is that Oracle Arena has a more fiscally responsible deal for the public than its Coliseum sibling. It requires more pledged money from its main tenant and a user fee (ticket tax/surcharge). Frustratingly, the annual debt was not being serviced properly thanks to the W's not paying their share initially and the lack of a naming rights sponsor until a couple of years ago. The Coliseum Authority chose to chip away at the debt by letting SMG manage the Arena (and the stadium as well), yet they waited several years until Oracle came along in search of what they felt would be the most lucrative naming rights deal.

Contrast that with HP Pavilion, which was roundly criticized at its inception for a sweetheart deal given to the Sharks and arena management by the City of San Jose. Original Sharks owner (and now minority partner) George Gund put $37 million of his family's money into the design of the then-San Jose Arena to add premium features and to prevent it from turning into a white elephant such as Miami Arena. The Sharks got the lion's share of revenues from the arena and took care of all of the costs. The arena management firm later became SVS+E, which was spurred on to be very aggressive in seeking out concerts and other events. The cost of doing business there became significantly reduced, and the City was not saddled with massive annual subsidies as a result. There's an ongoing joke here that even though the San Jose Arena initiative passed 53% to 47%, you can't find anyone that doesn't support the arena now.

The lesson here appears to be that in order to have a successful public-private partnership, it's best to have a clear vision laid out from the beginning that incentivizes the private half to achieve, even overachieve. In San Jose that's exactly what occurred, and both public and private halves are all the better for it. In Oakland it's been a mess that's taken a decade to become somewhat palatable, yet Oracle Arena is still struggling compared its more efficient rival to the south.

Arena League drops 2009 season

Despite San Jose SaberCat owner John Fry's efforts, the AFL is canceling the 2009 season. League officials believe the AFL can return in 2010 with a new business model. AFL's minor league, af2, will continue play in 2009 in large part because it has a different business model.

Two things jump out with regard to the AFL's (temporary?) setback. Attendance growth has been rather flat, topping out at about 13,000 fans per game regardless of a team's relative success. Fry had been wrestling with this even though the SaberCats won three championships in the last six years. Instability among the expansion franchises has also hurt the league. Take a look at this chart to see how unstable it is. Although the league was not dependent on big markets to stabilize itself, it couldn't have helped that the best run, most resilient teams were in mid-sized markets (Tampa, Orlando, Phoenix, San Jose). Teams in other small and mid-markets such as New Orleans and Nashville came and went twice. Numerous franchises failed to last an entire decade.

Another factor may have been the demise of the AFL's relationship with NBC. The two embarked on a revenue sharing agreement in 2003, but a large slump in ratings pushed NBC to end it. AFL then went to ESPN, which bought a small stake in the league along with a five-year broadcasting deal, but even that couldn't save them. The league has turned to ever increasing expansion franchise fees ($20 million recently) as cash infusions, but that in general is a poor way to run a league as it only temporarily takes care of fundamentally poor cash flow situations.

It's time for AFL to cull the herd. Sixteen teams currently populate the league, it could easily be cut to twelve or fourteen depending on each franchise's financial stability. Some teams were brought in simply to fill open dates in new arenas. If they really wanted to be more bold, they'd encourage more play between the big AFL and the little af2. Rules in place now prevent a real farm system, but it wouldn't be bad if teams from the two leagues played each other. They could even go to a relegation format, in which the best team from af2 moved up for a year to play with the big boys. This goes against af2's mission of player development, but honestly things need to be shaken up. They'll have to trim travel costs and perhaps reformat the league to streamline operations further.

Hopefully, AFL will take the year to make the necessary changes and store cash reserves in order to emerge healthy for 2010. It will require a change of scope and a more conservative business model to be solid in the long run.

Purdy fires up the SJ bandwagon

Merc sports columnist Mark Purdy has always been an unabashed San Jose partisan, and his column in Sunday's edition will start many more San Jose partisans' minds a-wishing. It's not only an affirmation of San Jose's potential, it's nearly a call to arms:

In a recent phone conversation with Wolff, he was relentlessly prudent when I tried to push him into saying San Jose was his intended alternate target. He simply kept repeating the letter's language. But earlier, Wolff told MediaNews that "I don't think there's any restrictions as to where" the A's can look. A phone call to Selig's office late last week seeking clarification was not returned.

Here is one thing many people don't understand: The Giants may indeed possess the territorial rights to the South Bay. But they do not control those territorial rights. Major League Baseball does. And if enough team owners vote to allow the A's into Santa Clara County, those territorial rights would vanish.

Long ago, a highly placed baseball source told me Selig could easily get such a vote passed on behalf of the A's. But he did not wish to do so — it would require political maneuvering with some big egos — unless a ballpark would definitely be built as a result.

That brings me back to the question I asked on Monday night: Why did Selig allow Steve Schott to start discussions with Santa Clara?

In 2000, years before this blog was first published, Wolff predecessor Steve Schott tried to get a ballpark done in Santa Clara. It was to be placed in the same location as the planned 49ers stadium. At the time there was no pressure on Oakland to get a ballpark deal done. There was no bidding war among cities. It was just Schott trying to get a deal done in a city where he grew up and maintained a business.

Bud Selig could've immediately put his foot down, stomped on Schott's plan, and reinforced the Giants' territorial rights. He didn't. He played wait and see with the plan and didn't slap it down for five months. Why would he wait so long? Probably because the A's were in a fluid situation, entertaining either a move to Santa Clara or a sale to out-of-area interests. News about that sale to Mandalay Sports was leaked in August 2001, forcing the Santa Clara City Council to end talks. Schott eventually got a ballpark built, but instead of a major league stadium, it was a smaller field for his alma mater, Santa Clara University.

Selig's stance on the Giants' T-rights has been consistent until Monday night, when he busted out the letter with the "other communities" phrase, a tantalizingly and maddeningly vague one at that. Does that sound like a consistent application of a rule or principle? Not to me. Selig's being an opportunist here. If he sees a deal that works for MLB and both the A's and Giants, he should be able to get plenty of support from the other owners. If not, he can cite territorial rights and lend the rule its mythical power.

That's why it puzzles me that so many believe T-rights are this entirely intractable situation. I wrote in Thursday's post that the biggest barrier to entry is not so much T-rights as it is money. It's not cheap or easy to move from one market to another. The costs involved can be absolutely staggering. That's why no movement has occurred in the NFL in a decade even though until recently four teams had outdated stadiums. I stand by my statement that territorial rights are obsolete, though I will amend that with the acknowledgment that the commissioner can use the rule to control discourse. Judging by his actions regarding the A's, that's exactly what he's done.

Fremont details lost in the shuffle

Now that San Jose has suddenly become a topic of discussion and Warm Springs has become a hotbed of its own, it only makes sense to do reset on the original Fremont plan at Pacific Commons. You remember that one, right? The plan with the 3,000+ homes and high-end retail meant to create a "walkable downtown" in a city that doesn't have one?

Plenty of details came out over the last week that work to lift some of the mystery over discussions between the A's, ProLogis/Catellus, and Fremont. It's these details, not the viability of alternative sites - they are alternative sites after all - that will help determine the fate of Cisco Field at Pacific Commons. Let's sort many of these out.

1. How much land do the A's own? I have to admit I got this wrong thanks to incomplete info and some incorrect assumptions. At least now, we've gotten a lot of this cleared up. On Tuesday night, we learned that the only land the A's owns is the land outside the ProLogis/Cisco areas: The Fountains Business Park, some of the properties on Brandin Court, and the old Christy Concrete plant. That's no small coin as it's nearly 45 acres. Even at a lowball value of $500k per acre, that's $22.5 million, nothing to sneeze at.
2. Who owns what among the Cisco/ProLogis-Catellus sites? Cisco controls the 28 acres that are meant for the "core village," the Santana Row-like development adjacent to Cisco Field. Cisco Field and the bulk of the housing would be built on ProLogis's land. The A's negotiated options to buy both as long as existing retailers' concerns were resolved. It was revealed that the true "option" belongs to those retailers, who are represented by Catellus, ProLogis's development wing. Opposition comes from the three big box stores and some of the Auto Mall dealers, and their disapproval amounts to a veto of the whole deal. Their opposition isn't to the project on principle, it's to the location specified in the plan. They would be more open to the plan if the A's placed the ballpark further away. The combined land total is around 180 acres, so it's possible for a reconfiguration to yield the results the retailers desire. The problems with doing this are threefold. Process-wise, a new Notice of Preparation would be required to show the new details of the land use plan. Environmentally, there would be different impacts as the ballpark were placed closer to the adjacent wetlands area. It's also probable that reconfiguration would make for a less cohesive development plan, as more parking may need to be placed in the area immediately surround the ballpark. Both sides, by not budging during this impasse, have made the location of the ballpark a dealbreaker. The city is stepping in to see if anything can be done about this, but unless both sides are willing to make more compromises, it's an uphill battle.
3. Without the ballpark, Pacific Commons doesn't get its Santana Row. Without the ballpark, the A's don't see upscale retailers filling a new lifestyle center. Which means that if the ballpark were decoupled and placed in Warm Springs, no Santana Row. That's less appealing for Fremont residents and the city, which is looking for greater sales tax revenue from high-end, high-margin retailers.
   

I have to say that, knowing all of this, it doesn't look good. My support of the project was based on the ability of the various parties to find common ground and compromise when necessary. It appears that's proven a tougher task than many of us outsiders had originally envisioned (even though I argued the retailers' case 5 months ago).

Lucky? San Jose

What you see above is what San Jose Economic Development honcho Paul Krutko might call a “baseball city.” Therein lies the promise of San Jose’s Diridon South site. It’s at the future nexus of Caltrain, BART, High Speed Rail, Light Rail, and bus service. It’s in a downtown locale. And perhaps most important of all, the ballpark planned for the site already has its EIR certified.

Most of the buildings in the foreground are just an artist’s concept, and that’s the point. The area between HP Pavilion and the ballpark site is a relatively blank slate. BART will tunnel underground, leaving plenty of space to develop. It’s just a matter of what type of development the area will see.

Economy
The irony in the whole Fremont/San Jose saga is that what may eventually kill the Fremont concept could make the San Jose concept work. To quote former President Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

It’s entirely likely that had the housing market not collapsed, we would be moving forward with the Fremont baseball village plan without a Warm Springs alternative, and without most of the hubbub seen Tuesday night at Fremont City Hall. The financing model would be solid and the only remaining issues would be the ones identified well ahead of time: traffic, satisfaction of the Pacific Commons businesses and environmental mitigation. Compared to the messy situation in Fremont now with the differing opinions and multiple conflicts, it would’ve been a cakewalk.

Dual-use infrastructure
The Diridon/Arena area, on the other hand, is destined to get a major infusion of cash. A major overhaul and expansion of the train station will be necessary to support HSR. Mayor Chuck Reed is already on the hunt for funds to improve the area. President-elect Obama’s rising-by-the-week stimulus package will be largely focused on major infrastructure projects. HSR is going to be near the top of the list because much of it is ready to go. I wouldn’t be surprised if movement of PG&E substation on the site was somehow magically appropriated. It certainly wouldn’t be wrong for the substation to be expanded upon its move to accommodate growing demand from BART and HSR.

Parking is the main infrastructure to be built. Additional parking will be needed to handle Caltrain, BART, and HSR users. It’s not known exactly how many spaces we’re talking about, but it will be more than the roughly 800 spaces there now. The beauty of it is that the parking would automatically be dual-use, for transit users and arena/ballpark patrons.

The problem there is that a lot of parking has to be built. San Jose is required to keep 6,650 spaces within a ½-mile radius of the arena. The ballpark has a 1,200-space garage planned to its south. That will help replace some of the spaces that will be lost to future development. Even more has to be built to handle the demand when both a baseball game and an arena event (only 25% are Sharks games) are occurring simultaneously. The good thing is that any new parking in the area can serve both events and transit at different times. Then again, it’s a double-edged sword. Having more parking available invites more drivers. What is currently a manageable system for the arena could turn into gridlock quickly.

The key, then, is to strike a balance. The secret to the traffic success around the arena is that there really isn’t that much parking immediately around it. Most of the area parking is east of Highway 87 in the downtown proper. That parking will continue to be leveraged and may need to be expanded.

In San Jose, the sights are set lower than in Fremont. The dream of serious retail downtown died with the opening of Santana Row. For the moment, housing is a nonstarter. So that basically leaves the ballpark. Chances are that the financing model hinted at by the Wolffs (private funding, additional naming rights and sponsorships – the Giants’ model) will be the one to use for at least the next five years. As much as Selig doesn’t want any team to go down that path, the times dictate alternate methods. It’s no coincidence that the two of the last three major sports venues built in this state within the last decade were privately financed (Staples Center, AT&T Park).

Territorial rights
The unique way the Bay Area is gerrymandered for the two teams is unlike any other two-team market. In May, I advocated for a simple payment of the A’s annual revenue sharing receipt (~$15 million) to the Giants every year until the ballpark opens. That could be $75-105 million depending on the opening date. Beyond that, the A’s could continue to pay some amount until the AT&T Park debt is paid off. Some will argue that this opens a Pandora’s Box regarding T-rights for other times, especially in NYC. However, that view is not the least bit pragmatic. The biggest barrier to entry now is not T-rights. It’s money. To get a team going in, for example, Northern New Jersey, a team will have to pony up close to $1 billion for an adequate ballpark. Where would they build? Can’t be the Meadowlands. Definitely not Newark. Plus if you haven’t noticed, most of the financial institutions that made loans to area MLB and NFL teams are struggling mightily if not belly up. NYC, for all its considerable population and wealth, is tapped out thanks to four (possibly five) new venues along with an on-the-table revamped Madison Square Garden. Teams also had to undergo huge lobbying efforts to get favorable legislation through. Territorial rights as a tool have become obsolete. That’s not to say that MLB will get rid of T-rights tomorrow. As long as they have an antitrust exemption they’re going to use it. This time however, there’s little milk left in that cow.

Think about it this way. What if T-rights ended tomorrow? What would happen? The A’s could try to get a ballpark deal done in San Francisco. What land could they conceivably build upon? How much would it cost? How would they know they could siphon enough of the Giants’ fanbase away to make it worthwhile? In reality, they couldn’t. It’s bad leveraging of the market. Politically, it’s not doable due to a populace and pols who won’t bend for the 49ers, let alone some new baseball team.

Let’s not forget that T-rights are entirely wrapped up in the Major League Constitution, which bars teams from suing either the league or each other. Any disagreements have to be wrapped up within The Lodge (though Bill Neukom didn’t earn his reputation as being soft).

Political will
Nothing gets built without a champion. Reed may be a fiscally conservative Democrat from Kansas, but he’s got former Mayor Tom McEnery in his ear. McEnery’s Siliicon Valley Sports & Entertainment owns the Sharks and just signed a deal to operate the Earthquakes’ new stadium. McEnery, Sharks president Greg Jamison, and Lew Wolff are good friends from way back. McEnery has long advocated bringing a baseball team to San Jose. If there’s a power behind the throne to get this done, it’s him. Even in City Hall there are able and willing participants. Dave Cortese, the current Vice Mayor, is about to step into a new County Supervisor role. He also is a major proponent of MLB-to-San Jose, HSR, and BART, and may look at all three with the same vision. Krutko plays the role of Robert Bobb in San Jose. From this Merc article, they're both quite excited about the prospects. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There’s no telling how many other high-powered proponents, such as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, will come out of the woodwork should a real proposal become public.

It’s amazing how the landscape has changed in such a short time. The economic collapse has hit many of us or our friends and family, yet the A’s and San Jose may benefit in an odd way. I didn’t see the Warm Springs alternative coming, and while I understand why it’s out there I could also see the opposition coming from a mile away. I don’t think San Jose would’ve opened up as a possibility if Santa Clara County Measure B had not passed. Proposition 1A had some pull as well, as it opens up the floodgates to federal transportation funds and private investment. It has taken a rather unusual, unforeseen set of circumstances to make San Jose a possibility, and I think we’re on the cusp of that moment.

The old San Jose Ballpark EIR

In case you're interested in seeing what a completed ballpark environmental impact report looks like, I've made the 2006 San Jose Ballpark EIR available online. It took some work to find and organize it.

The Draft EIR was distributed in numerous pieces. The first file contains the body of the document. The appendices are in a separate file, as is the Economic Impact Report. I'm still looking for the figures document, which contains various graphical detail. I've listed links for the Final EIR (scanned, not searchable), which is essentially the Draft EIR with some changes and additional technical information. All of the files are PDF, compressed in .ZIP format.

Draft EIR

• Draft EIR
• Appendices
• Economic Impact Report

Final EIR (most of it scanned, not searchable)

• EIR (essentially the Draft EIR)
  
• First Amendment
• General Correspondence
• Technical Reports
• Recirculated Cultural Resources document
  
• Approval (Certification)
  

Should you choose to download most of this stuff you'll be treated to hundreds of pages of at times mindnumbing detail.

It's important to note that this EIR only covered a ballpark and an associated parking garage nearby. No ancillary development was considered, and the ballpark concept was a fairly generic, 45,000-seat footprint. The Cisco Field concept is at least 10,000 seats smaller. While the EIR was certified almost two years ago, it faced staunch NIMBY opposition from the surrounding area. Appendix B in the Draft EIR has 20 pages of generally negative comments about the concept - and that doesn't include all of the comments taken during the several public outreach sessions. For a chronology of the EIR process, check out this link. From the Notice of Preparation to Certification, the process was 15 months long.

Tomorrow I'll give my current take on San Jose.

The genie is out of the bottle

Last night I spelled out the four types of comments we'd likely see in tonight's session. It pretty much fell in line with that demarcation, but I wasn't ready for the considerable intensity of one particular type of comment.

I took shorthand of each of the 42 comments and tabulated the totals. Suzanne Chan took her own poll and had it as 8 for, 30 against (!), and 4 neutral, giving the caveat that most of the negative comments were not negative about the project in general, but rather a specific site. I had slightly different numbers. Read 'em and weep:

You can see that 20 out of the 42 comments were related to the Warm Springs alternative, in which the ballpark would be decoupled from the village and placed near the future BART station. Opposition was passionate, some parts thoughtful and others hysterical. One resident didn't want a ballpark serving alcohol a half mile or less away from the local elementary school. Another mentioned the twelve traffic light cycles he had to wait through at the Auto Mall/Osgood intersection on Black Friday, as shoppers entered and exited the nearby Fry's parking lot. Two commenters talked about "letting the genie out of the bottle" as the ballpark would start to transform the area from a safe, well-heeled neighborhood into East Oakland around the Coliseum.

The addition of the Warm Springs alternative was a response to suggestions by BART and the MTC. The transit agencies and the A's feel that a ballpark could fit into a transit-oriented development design, though the concept is merely in its infancy. Surely they knew what kind of wrath they would encounter if they floated the idea, right? Many of the anti-WS folks were not opposed to the A's or the Pacific Commons site. They were vehemently against having it in their backyard.

Had Warm Springs not been included in the Notice of Preparation, tonight's comment distribution would've looked more like this (Other means neutral):

That's fair when you consider that sessions like these tend to bring out more negative comments.

Matt Artz of the Argus (thanks for the shout-out BTW) focused his article on Catellus, who officially came out against the project as it exists in the Notice of Preparation. Catellus is the real estate unit of ProLogis and has been working with the A's and the city to mitigate existing retailers' concerns. Unfortunately, I think Artz left out something. The statement read by Catellus veep Aidan Berry was not so much a general disapproval as it was frustration over where the ballpark was placed in the original plan. The site plan placed the ballpark less than 1/4 mile from the three big box anchors: Costco, Lowe's and Kohl's. Those three have been and always would be the most difficult to deal with because their business models don't mesh with a ballpark. The statement suggested that another site within Pacific Commons would've been more agreeable. The ballpark location hasn't changed since conception, ergo Catellus can't sign off. I can only guess that the A's didn't want to pursue a change because it would require a major change in the EIR, especially with regard to environmental concerns (I could use some expert verification of this, e-mail address in my profile hint-hint), and that would lengthen the process yet again.

How difficult is this? The NIMBYs want the project as far away from them as possible, at the expense of environmental and transit concerns. Some business owners and transit advocates want the ballpark at Warm Springs, but had little to say about the NIMBY issues. Meanwhile, there are supporters out there who want either Pacific Commons or Warm Springs or don't care either way. And that, my friends, is why ballot box planning is so problematic. People tend to look only at their own interests. They have every right to do so, but that doesn't make them good planners.

Council member Anu Natarajan chided the crowd at the conclusion by bringing up frequent complaints by Fremont residents that there aren't enough entertainment options in the city, that there isn't enough good retail. She initially supported the plan in an effort to address those quality of life issues. No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

KTVU: Selig letter surfaces, urges resolution

KTVU sent veteran reporter Lloyd LaCuesta to the proceedings tonight and he got the scoop du jour, a letter from Bud Selig urging Lew Wolff to take care of business in Fremont. And if he can't?

Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty interpreted that as meaning Selig is encouraging discussions with San Jose. Haggerty, who had a large part in putting the Fremont deal together, is as much in tune with East Bay politics as anyone.

Moving over to San Jose, Mayor Chuck Reed was asked for his reaction:

Basic pol-speak there. He went on to mention that San Jose has an already completed EIR as well as the Diridon South site at fair market value. Fair market value? Previous estimates for the 14-acre site were around $74 million, though that may have dropped somewhat with the flagging real estate market.

To keep things in order, this post will be the territorial rights and San Jose thread. The previous post and tomorrow's post will cover Fremont. Any comments straying from the subject matter in any thread will be deleted, you have been warned.

I'll say good night posing this question: Why did Selig allow Steve Schott to start discussions with Santa Clara?

Workshop: Setting the stage

Tonight was spent mostly observing various people's responses to the displays and the back-and-forth with representatives of Fremont and LSA Associates, the firm conducting the environmental impact report. Keith Wolff was also in the house.

The largest crowd was gathered around the image above, and for good reason. Many of those in attendance were residents of that neighborhood across 680 from Warm Springs. They are going to be there tomorrow, and they will have numbers. The session tomorrow is shaping up to be an interesting contrast of constituent groups. We'll see four types of comments:

• NIMBY types from the Mission San Jose neighborhood. Regardless of which parcel in Warm Springs could be chosen for an alternate ballpark site, many of those residents will protest vigorously.
• Ballpark supporters who prefer the baseball village in its original, whole form.
• Transportation advocates who would like to see the decoupled village/ballpark concept as shown above.
• Environmentalists who don't want to see development endanger the adjacent wetlands.
  

It's hard to say which group will be more prominent. I'll make an informal tally while I'm there. A warning about that - the session tomorrow is only an hour long, and even if they devote the entire hour to public comments (which they won't), only 30 or so comment slots will be available to speakers. Commenters are encouraged to use either the written comment forms or contact project principals via e-mail. From a process standpoint, public comments all get the same treatment and attention since they are a matter of public record. People tend to feel better about voicing their concerns directly, so if you get there early enough to get in the queue, let er rip!

I did learn one thing about the process that is, well, depressing. I mentioned earlier that the Warm Springs Alternative would be included in the EIR, but due to the lack of information about the alternative, additional time-consuming EIR work would be required. Traffic and other impacts would have to be studied in the same detail as the original site. That would conceivably push back the completion of the EIR, which then would delay construction, etc. I struck up a pleasant conversation with LSA's Shannon Allen, who when asked about this possibility said, "It gives me a headache." Me too.

Fremont sessions (yes, plural) and other news

While I was away prepping the Turkey Day feast, I had received an e-mail from the City of Fremont, advising me a City Council work session for the baseball village scheduled for this Tuesday, December 9. This is not a rescheduling of tonight's "open house" type event, it's an additional session to occur prior to the Council's normally scheduled meeting. So here's the complete schedule to avoid any confusion:

• Monday, December 8 - General Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, 6:30-8:00 p.m. @ Fremont City Hall Council Chambers.
• Tuesday, December 9 - City Council Work Session for Ballpark Village Project, 6:00-7:00 p.m. @ Fremont City Hall Council Chambers.
  

Fremont City Hall is located at 3300 Capitol Ave.

---

The Giants and developer Kenwood Investments received an extended deadline, January 15, to present their vision of a retail/entertainment complex across McCovey Cove from AT&T Park.

---

The Sharks acquired a 10-15% stake in the Earthquakes from the A's for up to $3 million. That's a pretty low figure compared to the reported franchise fee of $20 million (Correction, $3 million is a correct amount. I edited out a reference to the new asking price for an MLS expansion franchise, reportedly $40 million). Franchise values for teams outside of the NFL and MLB could take a hit in the near term, even small market NBA and NHL teams.

For SVS+E, the Sharks-related company that manages HP Pavilion, ice rinks in San Jose and Fremont (very close to the Warm Springs BART station site), and the San Jose Civic Auditorium, it's a chance to seal up the large events market in the South Bay. They'll manage the new stadium, which may or may not have a stage to accommodate large concerts. Only Shoreline Amphitheatre, which is run by events giant Live Nation, qualifies as local competition.

The agreement appears to be a few steps removed from having SVS+E operate Cisco Field. Given that many of the business-side and money people from both the A's and Sharks tend to rub elbows a lot, such an arrangement is a near formality. But where will that stadium be located?

---

Despite the recession, the Yankees are positioned to bring in an extra $200 million a year in revenue because of the new Yankee Stadium. Perhaps pinstripes will have a slimming effect on Vallejo native C.C. Sabathia.