Winter/Spring 2009 Progress Report

It's a "quiet period," so you know what that means. It's time for the seasonal ballpark progress report.


First up, the home team. All of the indicators have been reset back to zero, with the exception of funding. Cisco's continued pledge to provide naming rights for a new ballpark in the Bay Area is the one factor here. One thing we don't know is whether the substance of the naming rights agreement will change as the site changes from Fremont to somewhere else. The deal between the A's and Cisco included a real estate component, and while Lew Wolff maintains interest in the Fremont land for future development, that component may be worth less than when the deal was originally struck.

San Jose is just getting started on much of the political stuff. Yes, the initial EIR is done, but I won't nudge the Political Process indicator over until an updated EIR is certified. In addition, Site Acquisition won't be moved until both the A's and the City come to terms on the Diridon South site or an alternative.

Note: Good reading can be found in articles by Glenn Dickey and former NY Times baseball writer Murray Chass.


A crucial vote by the Miami city commission is scheduled for tomorrow. The last vote was deadlocked, as one of the commissioners was on maternity leave and the other four could not come to an agreement on certain financial terms and last minute requests. In the last week there's been talk of a bill to make all publicly funded venues subject to a referendum. There's also been a deal to guarantee a percentage of construction contracts to black contractors that was completed then rescinded. Last month's drama-filled session was no snoozefest, so tomorrow's vote might force me to stream it alongside tourney coverage. This vote won't be the end of the line, though, as Miami-Dade County has its own commission that needs to vote on the deal next week. Update 3/19 11:30 AM: Miami City Commission has passed the ballpark plan 3-2, after a mountain of discussion large enough to kill my tourney buzz.


I've added Tampa Bay to the report, as they've been stepping up their efforts to leave Tropicana Field sooner than later. The plan proposed last year, which would have converted tiny Al Lang Field into a major league facility in downtown St. Pete, was scrapped in favor of something less polarizing. Now they are looking north along the I-275 corridor for vacant land, ancillary development, and better access to fans in Tampa. The Rays, like the A's, have a long way to go. Unlike the A's, the Rays' lease at the Trop runs through the 2027 season.


Heavy lifting for the Twins has been already been done. They've gotten through a contentious battle over public financing (sales tax hike without a referendum), and everything is essentially built. The only remaining issue is a reconfiguration of the garbage burning facility across the street, to keep the stench that wafts over when the doors open from violating the sensitivities and appetites of fans who might want a hot dog or nachos.


Talk of Citigroup pulling back on its 20 year, $400 million naming rights deal with the Mets has died down as the feds have focused more on the budget and now, AIG. It could come up again in the future. Other than that, they're good to go.


The pinstripers got a $105 million loan to cover the remaining construction costs at the new palace of opulence in the Bronx. Area residents are still waiting for NY to complete the public parks that were promised.

Another edition will come in May, as the San Jose thing starts to shake out.

I smell a soap opera coming

Update 3/17 8:30 AM: Chip Johnson rips both City of Oakland and Wolff, suggests keeping team colors and history in Oakland.

Update 3/16 10:30 PM: Wolff apologizes, acknowledges season ticket sales are down.

Or rather, the soap opera's already here. Between the gamesmanship displayed by two somewhat grumpy old men over the weekend and reporters trying to figure out what the state of territorial rights is, there is no shortage of drama. That's great for the blog as it gives me something to write about, but frankly it's getting a bit tiresome. Not the blog, it's the writing about the drama that's tiresome. So you'll have to forgive me if for the rest of the blog's indeterminate life, I don't write about every minor trial and tribulation. There will be major events and major issues to discuss. The stuff that happened the last few days? It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Take Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums. Some here and in the media have baselessly speculated about Lew Wolff's future as A's managing partner. What's more likely is that in 18 months, Dellums will be gearing up to get out of Dodge. 6 weeks ago, Dellums' approval rating hovered at a W-like 25%, with a 60% disapproval rate. That's probably eked up a bit thanks to recent news about lower crime rates, but he can't get rid of the stink from his first 18 months on the job that easily. Dellums hasn't said anything about running for a second term, and it would appear that a bag of rocks could defeat him at this point. It's more likely that the usual council suspects (IDLF, Nadel, Brunner) will be climbing over each other for the brass ring.

Just 3 months before Dellums leaves office, the A's current lease will expire, and the team will be on a year-to-year lease through 2013. Wolff's statement that Oakland was done effectively removes Dellums and the City Council from the process thanks to its timing. It's callous, conniving, and quite final. In 2005, Wolff put out the Coliseum North plan, set his own clock to complete the deal, and ran out the clock before moving on to Fremont. The next two years will be spent running out the clock again. He managed to get a nice piece of insurance in the year-to-year lease extension, in case of a rainy day (or several hundred). Wolff has no reason to leave his perch when he can turn the corner in 2 years while setting his sights on his ultimate goal. If Wolff failed in his next endeavor and was forced to go back to Oakland, it's likely that neither he nor Dellums would be around to make the deal. It would be up to their successors to repair the relationship.

Going back to T-rights, the Chronicle's Giants beat writer Henry Schulman asked Larry Baer, who said "From what we could tell, there is no change in (Selig's) position." That's exactly how I expect it to be for some time to come. That's why Wolff asked San Jose pols to tone down their enthusiasm. If he had not intervened, at some point someone was going to ask MLB directly about T-rights, and whether they asked nicely or aggressively, it wasn't going to curry favor with the Lodge. T-rights, whether stadium or broadcast, is MLB's leverage over any city or market. There's no point in asking unless you come to them unless you're ready to talk turkey. San Jose is in no position to do that yet.

Threats from legislators about removing the antitrust exemption would be misplaced. The exemption, which allows MLB to wield its iron fist over franchise movement, has kept the team in Oakland. If it didn't exist, the A's might already be somewhere else. If it were removed, San Jose would have no restrictions against teams moving there, and that would make Wolff's job easier. I'd love to see the exemption killed, but only because of the right motivations and principles, not something as misguided as what Dellums is considering.

It's going to be a long slog for any ballpark effort for the next 1-2 years. Let's not get distracted by the small stuff.

Dellums: I'm going to Congress

Update: Matier and Ross speculate further.

I do believe Ron Dellums just said, "IT'S ON." We'll see if he's going to bring it.

Oakland's mayor indicated that he will seek congressional help in an effort to keep the A's in town. Immediately, that means Barbara Lee, Dellums' protege and successor in the House of Representatives. What strategies could Dellums/Lee have at their disposal? Let's take a look:

• A challenge to the antitrust exemption. Not sure how that would actually help Oakland, as MLB's use of the exemption is actually keeping Lew Wolff from moving to San Jose. Long term, it could help bring a third team to the Bay Area whether it's in San Jose or Oakland, but MLB would still have to be a willing partner in such an endeavor. A move like this would also be incredibly expensive and it's unclear where the money for a legal challenge would come from.
  
• Suing the A's. I'm not a legal expert and I don't know the details of the lease, but I could see where Oakland could consider taking legal action against the team for misrepresenting their intentions when the last extension was signed. Problem is, I think this was already covered by the lease terms containing a penalty if the A's were to leave the Coliseum early for a new home outside Alameda County.
  
• Dellums/Lee create a coalition to broker a regional deal. A city-led effort of the kind mentioned in Thursday's letter sounds good, but in the end Oakland still needs to leverage greater regional resources and business interests to put together something that Wolff might be interested in. We'll see if that's what happens, and more importantly, if Wolff has interest.

So much for a quiet period. Readers, do you have any ideas?

KJ wants the A's

Last night, the office of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson released a statement confirming KJ's interest in bringing the A's to Sactown. The catch? He's serious only if the A's are too:

"Sacramento will only pursue a team like the A's if the A's are serious and not looking to negotiate one community off of another and we can develop a stadium facility that will represent a true economic benefit to Sacramento," Johnson said.

Johnson said he would be making clear "the process and principles that we will adhere to when it comes to considering a Major League Baseball team" in the coming weeks.

Now we don't know what KJ's strategy is. Is he looking at an expanded Raley Field, which is not in Sacramento? Or is he hitching his wagon to a ballpark at Cal Expo to replace the arena if the Kings bolt? The latter sounds like a more palatable scenario for Lew Wolff and John Fisher.

The "process and principles" aspect piques my interest. It's one thing when you're San Jose and you don't have to contend with another team's interest in finite resources. It's another when the Kings and A's would most definitely compete with each other for political will, funding, etc. Would discussions start only after the Kings decided to leave? How long would that take?

Mayor KJ also touts his city's positives...

"A team in Sacramento would represent a home run for Major League Baseball,” Johnson said, though he really shouldn’t have. “Because Sacramento is a great sports town with a strong market in terms of fan interest, corporate support and the size of our media market."

...while conveniently excluding any mention of the financial and social calamity that is growing under his nose - and in between downtown and Cal Expo to boot.

Now that's an attractive adjacent neighborhood for developers. At least KJ got the fan interest part right. Corporate support and media market? Not so much.

Sorry Oakland, not interested

I take the dog for a long walk on a day off and something big happens. Go figure.

Credit to those who felt yesterday's letter from Oakland was a thinly veiled piece of CYA - that's exactly what it will end up being. I certainly didn't expect a response this quickly, but it happened and it was forceful. Any hope of retaining the team in the city that has been home for 40 years is all but lost. It's lame duck time.

You'd have to be in denial - or at least Ray Ratto - not to see what the next step is when reading the following paragraph from today's official press release from Lew Wolff:

We understand the facility continues to cost the city of Oakland and Alameda County millions of lost dollars per year. Sadly, the business and corporate base of the city of Oakland was very limited when we purchased the team and has eroded since. Our attendance and low number of season ticket holders (both one of the lowest in Major league Baseball) also continues to decline; even when our on-field performance produced play-off participation.

It's all about San Jose, which amazingly, Ratto does not mention in his blog post. It's about corporate dollars, suites and minisuites, club seats and advertising and sponsorships. It's about the demise of the classic, egalitarian form of fandom.

To make things completely cold and brutal, Wolff says this:

We recognize conditions have not changed. Letters to Major league Baseball offer nothing new or of any real substance. Outside stimulation to have us continue to play in an aging and shared facility may generate press and "sound-bite" opportunities, but do not provide any tangible alterations in the circumstances we face.

In other words, "Don't go over my head. I'm still the man here." Wolff goes on to thank Mayor Dellums and East Bay developer Sherman Balch, plus County Supes Gail Steele and Scott Haggerty, both of whom supported the Fremont plan. Not thanked are the other signatory to yesterday's letter, Jane Brunner, or previous Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. Hmmm, if I were Oakland I wouldn't expect much of a reply from the commish anytime soon.

I look forward to all of the namecalling that will commence shortly.

Oakland reaches out to Selig

I have to say that I've found Oakland's letter to Bud Selig the most fascinating news of the week.
In it, Mayor Ron Dellums and Council President Jane Brunner implore Commissioner Bud Selig to appoint a point person to work with the City. They cite Oakland's great history of support for the A's. The letter evens ends with a request to renew urban America:

In these troubling times when everyone is putting their shoulder to the common wheel and President Barack Obama has called on all of us to put the public's interest first, I believe a professional sports league like MLB has an obligation to do the right thing and stand by a city and its people who have historically stood alongside baseball.

It's a bit of a stretch, but it's well phrased. Neither Oakland nor San Jose need baseball to be relevant or vital. Both want it to either maintain or raise their profiles (as did Fremont, or at least its pols).

The more interesting bit is on the first page:

For our efforts to succeed, though, we will need a commitment from MLB and the A's that they will work earnestly with us to design a ballpark plan that will be good for Oakland, good for the team, and good for baseball.

We are naming an A's Stadium Committee comprised of some of Oakland's leading civic leaders who will be tasked by the City to work hand-in-hand with you, the Fisher Family and Mr. Lew Wolff to develop a stadium in Oakland.

In particular, we graciously request that you name a point person from the Commissioner's Office who will work with the city to develop a ballpark strategy that will keep the A's in Oakland.

Those three paragraphs tell us everything we need to know about how Oakland wants to proceed. They want a commitment from MLB and they want to work directly with MLB. That tells me they're going over Lew Wolff's head. They even mention the Fishers, even though John Fisher has generally receded into the background.

Is this really the way they want to do this? Has the relationship with Lew deteriorated to the point of asking him not to be the lead negotiator? I understand how the Miami situation came about, as Jeff Loria and David Samson kept making demands of Miami and Dade County while entertaining an exodus. The end result was that Bob DuPuy came in, told them to stand in the corner, and brokered the deal, which also appears to be on the precipice thanks to hotel tax revenue shortfalls.

I would think that the best way to write a formal letter like this to Wolff. Next, on Opening Day, make a full court press on Wolff and the Fishers. If they don't respond, then you make a plea to Selig. No city is going to put up money for a ballpark these days. If you're aiming to have the A's invest in the community $500 million in a ballpark and possibly hundreds of millions more for ancillary development that your city wants, then sell them on it, don't try to guilt them into it. There's no rush to make a deal at the present and certainly no need to go over people's heads at this point.

Wow, just wow.

Mark it down: April 7th

San José's Rules Committee just passed a motion to have the A's on the April 7 Council meeting agenda. The timing, as pointed out here and by Michael Mulcahy just a few minutes ago, coincides with the start of the regular season. The preliminary steps will look like this:

The Agenda language for a joint City and Redevelopment Agency item should read as follows:
1. Discuss actions that San José can take to prepare for the possibility that Major League Baseball (MLB) makes a decision allowing the Athletics (A’s) to consider relocating to San José.
2. Direct staff to prepare and return to Council with a Resolution indicating the desire of the City of San José to support the A’s if MLB favors a relocation of the A’s to San José; and, indicating that the City is willing to accommodate the A’s on the site at Park Avenue and Autumn/Montgomery Streets.
3. Direct a team of City and Redevelopment Agency staff to assess what steps may need to be taken to prepare the site at Park Avenue and Autumn/Montgomery Streets for potential consideration, and develop an outreach program to neighboring residents and businesses.
4. Direct staff to provide a status report and recommendations for additional actions that may need Council authorization to the Community and Economic Development Committee within two months of the April 7th Council hearing followed by a discussion at the City Council.

So there's your site and your initial timetable, including a report from CEDC due within two months of the 4/7 session.

The possibility of a public poll has been raised to gauge interest. Vice Mayor Judy Chirco wants no part in the City paying for such a poll, saying that it would be funded with OPM (other people's money). It appears that the poll would be well within the scope of the A's to San Jose Study Group's mission. Mulcahy mentioned that the group has already raised money, though he did not say which specific activities the money would be used for.

I wonder if the Study Group would also fund an economic impact report of the type Mark Purdy wanted last week. After all, outside of MLB, the Study Group would be well equipped as it has access to dozens, if not hundreds, of Valley business leaders. Plus, noted sports economist Roger Noll is up the street at Stanford for consulting purposes - though they may not eventually like what he has to say.

Mayor Chuck Reed, who gave San Jose a better than 50/50 chance to land the A's (I really hate enumerating odds in this manner) re-emphasized the one voice mantra he's been giving, going so far as to say this about territorial rights:

It's up to Mr. Wolff because it's truly a case of "inside baseball." It requires him to take the lead. There may be a role for us to play. He'll happily let us know if there is.

Several speakers were on hand. Most were positive, saying that they fully support the effort as long as no public money is involved. One speaker felt a better deal could be had at the Fairgrounds. Two members of the Shasta/Hanchett neighborhood voiced their disapproval and trepidation, especially when considering the combined effects from construction of a ballpark, underground BART, and overhead HSR. A member of the San José Downtown Residents Association spoke in support of the ballpark. So we may have the Shasta/Hanchett folks on side and the Downtown Residents on the other.

I believe the quiet period starts now at lasts through Opening Day. I'll have posts every few days, probably nothing major.

SJ Rules Committee meeting + Study Group

San Jose's Rules and Open Government Committee will have its weekly meeting on Wednesday, March 11, at 2 p.m. The meeting will be held in City Hall's wing, rooms W118/119. The A's portion of the agenda is as follows:

10.1a A’s Stadium in San Jose (Campos/Pyle/Herrera)
Recommendation: (1) Add an agenda item to the March 24, 2009 City Council meeting to discuss the City’s strategy for pursuing negotiations with the A’s and Major League Baseball. (2) Direct the City Manager and the Chief Development Officer to lead the discussions with the A’s organization and Mayor League Baseball. (3) Direct staff to return to the Community and Economic Development Committee every two months with updates on status of the discussion, providing ample opportunity for residents to receive regular reports on the project and express concerns as it develops.
DEFERRED FROM MARCH 4, 2009

10.1b A’s Stadium in San José. (Mayor Reed)
Recommendation: That the Rules and Open Government Committee place this matter on the agenda for the April 7, 2009 evening Council meeting to allow for maximum public participation in the discussion.

Approval of these items is expected to be little more than a formality, as it will pave the way for future discussions. Note the last date, April 7, which is just after Opening Day. I will be in attendance tomorrow and all subsequent City Council sessions.

---

Not coincidentally, a public/private consortium called the A's to San José Study Group "have convened to discuss the political feasibility of bringing the Oakland Athletics Major League Baseball team to San Jose." The group will be co-chaired by former mayor Susan Hammer and recent mayoral candidate Michael Mulcahy. Hammer presided over the construction and opening of the San Jose Arena (now HP Pavilion) during her anti-flamboyant tenure during the 90's. Mulcahy, who was came in a distant 5th in the 2006 primary, was a pro-baseball guy from the beginning. The list of participants reads like a Baseball San Jose reunion. Unlike the last Baseball San Jose effort, which was old school/pound-the-pavement, the new one is decidedly electronic, including an almost 500-person strong Facebook group (I am not in the group).

Indulge the fantasy

It's hard not to remember the late 80's fondly as an A's fan. Rickey in left, the Bash Brothers, Stew dominating Clemens, multiple ROY wins, Eck, the list goes on and on. While the team only went 1 for 3 in the World Series, the idea that the A's were at the top of the heap was inescapable.

We got a glimpse of what the Coliseum looked like when it brought in 35,000 a night. Now, that usually left 14,219 seats available, but who was really counting? Not the Haas family, evidently. The place was vibrant, pleasant, and most importantly, the team won. Who could complain? Not me. I was just entering the giant bag of awkwardness that was high school, and the A's were a great refuge from the social mores of adolescence.

In that context, it's difficult to dissociate the Coliseum, forlorn for much of its life, from the team. The team provided the stadium a halo effect, much the same way a new model sports car will improve the perception of a car brand or dealership. The Coliseum was at times mentioned in the same breath as Dodger Stadium, a comparison which now sounds ludicrous but was fairly apt back then. Of course, the halo effect is never permanent, and nearly all vestiges of those salad days disappeared when the Raiders came back to town.

I don't fault the end product, Mt. Davis, as much as I blame the circumstances that led to its construction. Unlike the 60's-80's era of multipurpose stadia, modern baseball and football diverged significantly in how the two leagues wanted their venues designed. Let's look at how the two sports diverged:

• Starting with New Comiskey Park, new ballparks capped their capacities at 50,000, eventually downsizing to 40-45,000 as the comfort zone. Football stadia hold crowds of 60-70,000, with some designed to hold thousands more for college bowl games or the Super Bowl.
  
• With few exceptions, ballparks had 40-60 suites. Football stadia had at least double that number. Texas Stadium and FedEx Field each contain an astounding 300 suites. That creates more verticality and reduces intimacy.
• Football stadia generally eschewed the use of cantilevered or overhanging seating decks. In ballparks, cantilevering is encouraged, though short of the point at which columns would be needed.
• The first row of a ballpark's lower deck is usually no more than 1 foot above the field. In football, it's customary to be 6-10 feet above the field when in the first row.
  

When considering this divergence, it's easy to see how Mt. Davis was constructed. Function ruled over form, with the mission being to stuff as many seats and suites into a small space as possible. The east side wing now sits as a massive concrete albatross, costing Oakland and Alameda County a combined $22 million in debt service and operating costs per year for the next 18 years. It's fine to want the thing demolished, but if one or both teams are going stay there, someone has to pay for it. The meager lease the A's pay hardly makes a dent. However, you're not going to get more out of the A's in the next lease than what you're getting now. Who knows what an extension for the Raiders might look like? The Coliseum JPA is truly stuck. They have to justify the debt service somehow, yet it only costs them more to keep the two tenants in the Coliseum. How ironic that one of the Coliseum's tenants has a white elephant as a mascot.

Still, let's posit that the Raiders do actually leave after the 2010 season, leaving the A's in the Coliseum for at least 3 years. Let's go with the idea of demolishing Mt. Davis, then remaking the outfield to look like the old Coliseum. There are several improvements that could be made cheaply that would make the old girl a better experience for fans. The changes wouldn't bring it up to par with a modern ballpark, but that's not the point. It's an interim step until the A's and Oakland/Alameda County figure something else out, whatever that is.

• Get rid of the fences and concrete barriers. These "spite fences," erected when the Raiders moved back in, are the antithesis of fan friendliness. They prevent views of the field from the concourse and limit sunlight from filtering in. The barriers have managed to make the concourse more drab and claustrophobic than it was originally.
  
• Remove the last 4 rows of the lower level. By removing these rows, the lower concourse can be expanded 11 feet all around (with the exception of the stairwells). Circulation would be improved. New standing room areas can be introduced, as well as new ADA wheelchair locations, which would be properly elevated above the row of seats in front of them. Net loss of 2,000 seats.
  
• Remove the last 3 rows of the plaza level. If you've ever sat in these seats, you know what I mean. You're at eye level with the overhang. You half expect bats to hang from the ceiling. The wind whips through, making things uncomfortable. The seats themselves aren't the most accessible because you have to contend with the stairs leading to the upper deck. This change only affects the sections down the foul lines, because of suites and the West Side Club. Net loss of 1,000 seats.
• Tear off the tarps and remove the first three rows of the view level. The seats themselves are useless as long as the first row is used for circulation. For years, the A's wouldn't sell many of these seats until the seats above them were sold because of this problem. Instead, convert some of these rows into group or party areas. Cordon them off the way the East Side sections are separated, and the circulation problem goes away. I've always thought it would be cool to have a bunch of recliners at the front of section 317. Net loss of 1,400 seats.
• Bring back the bleachers, iceplant, and monuments.
  
• Handrails, please. The view and plaza levels are not particularly steep compared to other stadia, but they could still use handrails, especially for those who've had a few either in or out of the ballpark.
• Upgrade the restrooms. This means new fixtures and the removal of troughs. An additional women's restroom may be needed to properly address potty parity.
• Reduce the number of suites by expanding them. It doesn't solve the problem of not having an exclusive concourse. However, reducing inventory introduces scarcity, plus the suites can be redone in a more attractive way by including bathrooms and increasing space inside each suite. Net loss of 20 suites.
• Move the Stomper Fun Zone to the outfield. Yes, it reeks of Coke bottle slides and gigantic gloves, but it's a way to spiff up the look of the park. It advertises how family friendly the place is. Plus it's not tucked into some out-of-the-way location as the current Fun Zone is. May reduce bleacher capacity a several hundred seats.
  
• Combine the two DiamondVision screens. They're old and obsolete, but if no one wants to pony up $5-10 million for a new LED board, combining the two screens would make for a decent sized screen. Or if they only used one, the other could be used for parts.
  

New capacity would be 44,500, down from the pre-Mt. Davis capacity of 49,219. Again, it doesn't solve all of the other problems the A's have with the stadium. It does create a more fan-friendly, intimate atmosphere, with needed upgrades to several locations within the Coliseum. I figure these modifications would cost $25 million, including the demolition and rebuilding of the outfield. I may be underestimating the cost, and I have no idea how it would be paid for. The Raiders could easily destroy the fantasy of so many A's fans by signing an extension at the Coliseum, which contrary to popular belief, is what they were seeking when they settled with the JPA over three years ago.

How to expand a minor league ballpark

I'll start off with an excerpt of a post on the SkyscraperPage forum:

11/27/2006

In response to your question regarding Raley Field, it was not built expressly to be easily expanded in the future. The stadium was designed specifically for its current tenant, Triple-A Baseball, and all of the comfort and intimacy that makes Triple-A Baseball so successful. That said, in the unlikely case that we would want to expand the ballpark to accommodate a larger capacity, the stadium would need significant adjustments but likely not need to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch.

I hope this helps. Take care, have a great holiday season and go River Cats!

Gabe Ross
Assistant GM, Director of Media Relations
Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club

"...not built expressly to be easily expanded in the future." So you can't simply slap an upper deck on top of Raley Field and then call it a day? Imagine that.

The operative question regarding Raley Field isn't, "Can it be expanded?" but rather "How expensive will it be to expand?" Any stadium, as long as there is space, can be expanded, whether it's a ballpark, football or soccer stadium (this means you, Quakes fans). The issue is whether or not it's cost effective to do so. In the last post about a Mt. Davis-oriented Coliseum remodel, I mentioned that $250 million has to be the baseline or minimum cost because that's how much is being spent on renovations to Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City. Expansion could cost more, it most certainly won't cost less.

Raley Field was planned with the idea that it could eventually hold a major league team, and in an arguably easy manner to boot. What happened from conception to construction to change this?

Blame it on the rain

In Fall 1999/Winter 2000, Northern California was deluged with incredible amounts of rainfall. Raley Field had a short 9-month construction period, and the rain put the schedule severely in jeopardy. In addition, the team and West Sacramento wanted to adhere to a $40 million budget, which doesn't sound like much in terms of ballparks but at the time made Raley Field one of the most expensive minor league ballparks in history. Eventually, the ballpark opened over a month into the 2000 season. Coincidentally, the River Cats were forced to play home games at the Coliseum to high school basketball game sized crowds.

Rain made the construction period longer, which incurs additional labor cost. Precipitation also caused a rethink in the construction methods. Changes were made almost on the fly, including a major structural modification:

Because of the time restraints the initial design was changed from steel H-columns to poured-in-place reinforced concrete columns, and supporting the suite level with prefabricated steel trusses.

The structure ended up looking like this:


Up top is the view from the concourse, with the suites above. Below that is a picture of the underside of the Solon Club down the rightfield line, though the image is curiously flipped.

It's pretty clear to this untrained eye that the beams and girders above the concourse were not designed to handle to load of a level of suites and a massive upper deck, especially in earthquake country. The change is an important piece of value engineering that will make expansion more expensive, should a MLB team be interested in Sacramento. Assuming that the concrete columns are built to handle both suites and an upper deck (I have no reason to believe otherwise), new structural work would probably have to be in place above the columns. That means the entire existing upper level, which contains the Solon Club, suites and the press box, would have to be demolished. That's just as well, since these amenities probably aren't up to modern MLB standards, especially the small press box.

But wait there's more!

Every new ballpark has some 3,000 or more club seats. Seats are often disbursed between two different club levels: one at a mezzanine level, one at field level behind the plate. Nationals Park has taken this a step further by having three separate club areas, while designating all lower level seats behind the plate as club seats. If you want to sit behind the plate without paying through the nose, be prepared to have your nose bleed. I digress.

The Solon Club has 450 club seats, which is not sufficient. In a renovation they're going away, to be replaced by more luxury suites. There's also the Founders Club, the primo seats behind the plate which have at-your-seat food service but no club concourse of their own. Let's say that the area behind the plate gets ripped apart to accommodate such a transformation, a la the Scout seats at US Cellular Field. That's probably good for 500 seats.

Where do the other 2,500 go? The only place would be the front of the upper deck, above the luxury suites. It's not a premier spot for such seats, but it was done successfully at PNC Park, so there is a precedent. Go this route and you have to build two new concourses - one for the club and one for the regular upper deck. To understand the impact, take a look at some cross-sections. Before:

After:

We're talking about triple, quadruple the amount of concrete that was used for the original ballpark. The new structure also requires greater amounts of high-strength steel, with enough concern for seismic safety that it's not out of reason to overbuild the structure (PETCO Park).

Getting to the minimum

Adding up the expansion looks like this:

• Existing seating capacity: 11,093
• New right field seating to replace berm: 5,000 (berm held 3,000)
• New upper club: 2,500
• New upper deck reserved: 12,000
• New left field bleachers: 2,000
  

That brings the estimated new capacity to 32,500. Plus there are some not-so-miscellaneous items:

• Additional construction work would be required, mainly the move of the clubhouses from left field to under the lower seating bowl.
  
• Can't have a wraparound double deck grandstand in right because that would block the view of Tower Bridge and the Sacramento skyline.
• The railroad track (inactive?) that wraps around the outfield limits space a bit.
• New ramps, elevators, and escalators would be required and would be expensive.
• Planners might have to figure out a way to include a third gate somewhere. Two gates as currently constructed aren't enough to handle nearly triple the crowd size.
• New scoreboards and ribbon boards would be required. As a reference point, compare Kauffman Stadium's new "crown" HD video board in center, which was installed last year for $8.3 million.
  

Given all of that, I'm pretty sure that the whole thing would cost a lot more than $250 million. No, they wouldn't have to demolish Raley Field and start from scratch. But they'd have to demolish a lot of it.

Oakland buys land near Coli for grocery store

The latest attempt to improve things in the enormous Coliseum Redevelopment zone comes courtesy of City itself. CEDA is buying 6.3 acres for a cool $7.7 million - chump change as far as urban Bay Area real estate is concerned. The land will apparently hold a new grocery store, as Oakland is brokering a deal with an unnamed retailer. I'm guessing it's Lucky/Save Mart as the Safeway-owned Pak'n Save is on Hegenberger.

The site appears to be immediately south of the AC Transit bus yard. AC Transit is involved in the deal, which may point to an expansion of the yard along with adjacent development. For those who may look to patronize the store prior to entering the Coliseum, it's 1/4 mile north of the BART station, much closer than the aforementioned Pak'n Save.

The price of the land is what piqued my curiosity. At $1.2 million per acre, that's within spitting distance of the $1 million per acre that Lew Wolff was offering for Coliseum North land. Perhaps the price would not have been so low three years ago. Still, it's interesting.

Learning to love Mt. Davis

Well, since no one took me up on my offer from February 20, I took it upon myself to figure out a unique way to reuse the Coliseum in a cost-effective, yet modern (in ballpark terms) manner. I've been in nearly every inch of the Coliseum as a fan or media person, yet there's always something to learn when doing an exercise such as this.

One common refrain I've heard from fans is, "Knock down Mt. Davis and bring the Coliseum back to its pre-1995 glory and everything will be just fine for the A's." There's nothing wrong with tying a little nostalgia to wishful thinking. Still, it's one of the more unrealistic notions I've ever heard. Oakland and Alameda County still have $22 million in debt service due on the renovation for the next 18 years. Foul territory and sightlines would still be bad, the stadium would be ADA-deficient in many ways, and the stadium would continue to be a poor revenue generator. That's a bad situation for the A's and all fans except the hardcore type. If hardcore fan interest were enough, this blog wouldn't exist.

I suppose the foul territory problem could be remedied a bit by constructing a new set of field level sections which hug the foul lines more closely. It doesn't solve the curvature of the seating bowl, but it's a start. Of course, you do that and you get something that looks like this:

Ah yes, Shea Stadium. We know what happened to Shea.

How then, to leverage the investment made in 1995 to make it work for the A's? The seating bowl sucks and has to go. The regular bowl suites are crap compared to other ballparks. There's a dearth of club seating. For a place this big, how could it be this... cramped?

The answer is to utilize the one part of the renovation that is modern and spacious. That's Mt. Davis. Not the whole thing, mind you, just the parts you need. At the same time, use just a portion of the old seating bowl, from dugout to dugout. Before I get to that, I have to explain why Mt. Davis is a good thing.

Embrace the space

Compared to the original Coliseum, the Eastside stand is downright cavernous. It has high ceilings, wide concourses, separate access for club seaters and suite holders. All 90 suites are on their own concourses. The Eastside Club is 40,000 square feet of fairly well appointed, perfectly usable and rentable space. The Eastside has all of the things a modern ballpark needs, more than enough in fact. There are three levels of suites. One level can be converted into the minisuite concept Lew Wolff likes so much, the other two can be kept as regular suites. Some can even be expanded into XL sized suites. The upper seating sections of the Club can be converted into restaurant seating, making for excellent views of the field much like the old Westside Club.

Even better, those temporary football seats can be replaced with something that works better for baseball. Knock out those block seating sections and you have an open concourse. It's easy to build in good ADA compliance while getting rid of those aluminum risers. As the new baseball-friendly lower seating sections get built, all of that space underneath can be utilized for a new A's clubhouse, batting cages, and other team facilities.

There remains the Mt. Davis upper deck. Those seats are about as useful as teats on a bull. Nothing wrong with removing those sections completely along with their connecting ramps. It'll reduce the stadium's height, making it far less imposing and removing forever the unfortunate toilet bowl overhead shot from any future broadcasts. Excess seats could be donated to local colleges and high schools for their own use. US Cellular Field underwent a similar kind of renovation in 2004.

What would this redone Coliseum look like? Here you go:

It's pretty simple. The bullet points:

• Keep Mt. Davis.
  
• Keep the Plaza level seats behind the plate, along with the press box, Westside Club, and a handful of suites that'll be turned into party suites.
  
• Everything else gets knocked down, including the tarped-off upper deck.
  
• Put in new bleachers and bullpen locations with ice plant behind them.
  
• Build half of a simple, new two-deck grandstand with a new press box and new exclusive club areas behind the plate. No suites needed.
  
• Turn the old press box into an A's Hall of Fame Museum and preserve the broadcast booths.
  
• Add a kids play area in the outfield.
  
• Update the fixtures and technology throughout.

The big weakness in the concept is the field orientation, just east of true south. It's not what the makers intended, but it shouldn't be a problem as long as the new grandstand was constructed in a way that properly blocks the setting sun. That shouldn't be a problem. The sun also won't be in the batter's eyes as he won't be facing the setting sun and a midday sun should be pretty high in the sky.

The concept seats 34,000 with plenty of space for more. More importantly, it manages to preserve many of the best features of the old Coliseum and complements them with truly modern ballpark elements. The cost? The best comparison is the Kaufmann Stadium renovation, which cost $250 million.

Herhold: Get ready for the NIMBYs... in San Jose

Remember when the residents of Warm Springs got their pitchforks and torches polite signs and protested the A's invading their neighborhood? If you thought that San Jose was somehow immune from NIMBYs because it's downtown, think again. Merc columnist Scott Herhold writes about residents of the Shasta/Hanchett neighborhood west of downtown. They're getting ready to make their voices heard amidst the renewed ballpark efforts in San Jose.

This is not a new or inconsistent stance. When the ballpark EIR commenced in 2006, these very same residents had plenty of concerns about traffic and light and noise impacts. Back then, the ballpark was expected to hold up to 45,000 people with a height over 200 feet including light standards. Cisco Field is expected to hold 32-35,000 and based on drawings, would be much lower than 200 feet thanks to its two-deck design.

NIMBYs have more to worry about than just a ballpark. Diridon Station is eventually going to be a massive transit hub with BART running underground and HSR running above ground. Preliminary sketches of the HSR platform could have its canopy be 100 feet tall or more. High speed trains also make noise, though it's not of the diesel engine variety. The whole Diridon area is slated for medium rise development, which means lots of future construction, including piledrivers. Adobe bought the nearby San Jose Water Company land and plans an expansion at some point.

Proponents of the ballpark point to all of the naysaying regarding the arena's development. The arena didn't destroy either Shasta/Hanchett or the further away Rose Garden, and it actually led to redevelopment of downtown and the Cahill Park neighborhood immediately west of Diridon Station. A ballpark promises to bring 30,000 people into downtown 81 times a year, at many times simultaneously with a 17,000-person HP Pavilion event. A resident's approval may simply depend on whether or not bringing that many people into SJ is considered a good thing. San Jose isn't forever gripped in a small town/big city conundrum as Fremont is. San Jose's inferiority complex is palpable and pols for the last 20 years have tried to address it in numerous ways.

Herhold's status as a Shasta/Hanchett resident adds a twist. He acknowledges that so far, residents are majority opposed. At the end of his column, he proclaims his support of the ballpark, as long as it's a good deal for the city. He noted the success of HP Pavilion and its effect on the stretch of The Alameda that runs north of his neighborhood. I live closer to SJSU, so I don't have a stake in Shasta Hanchett. However, I may move there at some point to raise a family and take advantage of the schools there. It's also not a bad place if, in the future, I want to walk with my growing child to an A's or Sharks game. That said, I'm with Herhold on the ballpark issue. If the city can make a good deal, let's do it.

Note: I originally posted this without mentioning the neighborhood that would be most affected by a ballpark: Delmas Park. It's directly under the approach to SJC airport. Sadly, Delmas Park isn't a moneyed enclave like Shasta/Hanchett or the Fremont neighborhoods. It's naturally going to be more difficult for them to have a say in all of this.

For my comments on the original SJ Ballpark EIR, see this post.

Comcast working behind the scenes

During Sunday's radio pregame show, A's broadcasting veep Ken Pries addressed how CSNCA was going to be carried on various systems. It doesn't completely clear up the confusion, but it's progress.

On DirecTV, the channel will carry the broadcasts with no blackouts. CSNCA currently exists on a non-basic tier, so CSN and DirecTV are trying to figure out a way to include the channel on basic. No word on whether or not Dish network will give the channel the same treatment.

CSNCA is moving from 400 to 89 on Bay Area Comcast. 89 may sound like an extended basic channel, but the definition of extended basic is about to change. The move coincides with Comcast's own digital transition. Throughout the rest of the year, they are taking all analog channels above 34 (35-99) and moving them to digital. That means that everyone who wants those channels will need some kind of set top box to enjoy them. Those who have STB's won't notice. Those using their TV's analog tuner will need STB's. Comcast and other cable operators have a few more years to complete their digital transition, but it's in their best interest to move these channels as quickly as possible. 7 or more digital standard definition (SD) feeds fit into a single analog channel slot. 2 HD feeds fit into one analog channel. Comcast will be able to take all of the analog channels and stuff them into 7-8 slots, which will free up a tremendous amount of bandwidth for additional broadband data and on demand video, plus new HD channels as they get rolled out. Comcast will continue to move more analog channels to digital until 2012, when their own transition deadline comes up.

Weekend newswrap 3/1

First off, the SF Business Times reported on Friday that the City of Oakland and the A's will start talking about the team's future in Oakland in a few weeks. The talks will be headed by new City Administrator Dan Lindheim. Lindheim was also Oakland's head of CEDA, so he should have all of the tools necessary to talk sites, whether it's the Coliseum or elsewhere in Oakland. V Smoothe has a good writeup of the Oakland side of the situation. There are questions about how both the A's and Oakland would proceed, and the political ramifications of the answers to those questions, but that deserves a much longer post in a week or two. Look for an unusual Coliseum revamp post later in the week.

Next up, VTA ordered up some sales tax revenue projections for the next three decades. Unfortunately, they came up woefully short in terms of monetary needs for BART-to-Silicon Valley construction, operating costs, and funding for other transit programs. That will force VTA to delay the extension's downtown San Jose tunnel and full operation until 2025. In the meantime, VTA will look to terminate the extension at the planned Berryessa station, 2.5 miles northeast of downtown and 3.5 miles from the Diridon South site. Looks like all those claims of having the best transit hub in the state are a bit premature, though an economic recovery could potentially improve those revenue projections. Depending on legal issues, more frequent and electrified Caltrain plus High Speed Rail could conceivably arrive in San Jose earlier than BART.

Finally, the development plan for the Cal Expo Fairgrounds was released. The plan, which covers 350 acres between Arden Fair and the American River, includes a new arena for the Kings. If it looks similar to the Pacific Commons baseball village concept, that's because it was done by Gensler, the same firm that worked out the land use for the A's in Fremont. A scaled-down fairgrounds is included, with a large amount of open space and a new fairgrounds pavilion as the anchors. No developer has signed onto it, and there will certainly have to be some serious legislative machinations done in the Capitol to get this done, considering it is state-owned land. The presentation also describes two funding scenarios, one in which TIF is used and another where TIF isn't used. Another important point: the plan stretches out until its completion in 2036. If anything, the plan suffers from extraordinarily bad timing. Surely there will be some sort of deadline set for interested parties to take on this enormous plan. Will the economy recover quickly enough for that to happen? After all, the arena is in the first phase.

Site redesign

It's been nearly 4 years since I started this blog, and for a while I've felt it needed a change to its rather generic, stale look. To that end, I've started using a template normally used for WordPress but adapted for Blogger. The only major change is that it's a wider template, better for use with high resolution, widescreen monitors. I'll be able to incorporate larger pictures and additional page elements in the process.

Comments and/or suggestions about the new look? You know what to do.

Lew to SJ: "Slow your roll"

In an effort to contain communications, Lew Wolff asked San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to keep city officials from contacting Major League Baseball about the city potentially getting the A's. This may be to avoid the spectacle caused by former Mayor Ron Gonzales, when in 2005, he staged a press conference complete with unconvincing signage in front of Phoenix Muni in an effort to convince MLB that San Jose was a worthy city. The event didn't hold a candle to Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman's use of showgirls a few months earlier at the 2004 winter meetings. Goodman repeated the performance in a misdirected manner last December, in front of a bunch of minor league moguls.

Back in 2005, both the mayor and the now-defunct Baseball San Jose group lobbied hard on San Jose's behalf. There was talk of liberation for San Jose. Some suggested legal means to loosen the Giants' grip on Santa Clara County's territorial rights. Wolff had not yet assumed control of the A's, and the city's efforts were confusingly, yet transparently non-specific.

This time, it's clear who's going to talk and how it's going to progress. If there's anything we've learned about the last few years, it's that MLB doesn't like to be shown up. Even Bud Selig's continued stubborn defense of his tenure during the steroid era shows the need to control the message, no matter how absurd it sounds.

As the San Jose saga begins in earnest, expect the communications to be tight. No room for overeager types looking to earn political points, no need to stray from whatever blueprint is/will be in place. If San Jose is, as Roger Noll says, the last chance to keep the A's in the Bay Area - and more importantly Wolff believes it - Lew's not taking chances.

San Jose gets the ball rolling

A group of San Jose City Council members wants to get moving on talks with the A's by proposing the A's be an agenda item for the March 24 session. Among the tasks associated with the item: commissioning a poll to gauge public support for an A's move, and a request to set rules for any formal business discussions with the A's.

What's interesting about this is that the three members involved - Nora Campos, Nancy Pyle, and Rose Herrera - aren't really considered part of the "gung ho" pro-A's faction within City Hall. That group, led by Mayor Chuck Reed and Council members Sam Liccardo, Pete Constant, and Pierluigi Oliverio, have apparently been talking informally with the A's and among themselves on how to tackle the situation.

The ever reliable SJ cheerleader, Mark Purdy, fired up the bandwagon as soon as he could. He even added a twist to his plea to MLB, requesting an economic study to determine what measurable adverse effects for the Giants would come out of an A's move to San Jose. A fair request, IMHO. And speaking of polls, a very unscientific Merc web poll shows that 72% of the over 1,000 respondents approved of the A's pursuit of San Jose. Another 9% conditionally approved the move based on the resolution of territorial rights.

Silly me, thinking we were entering another quiet period. Well, it'll be quiet for a couple of weeks at least.

New FAQ

This is the new FAQ. The old FAQ has been renamed "Fremont FAQ." It has not been edited or amended. The new FAQ leads off with a post-mortem on the Fremont plan. It is followed by a review of candidate cities, including Oakland, San Jose, and others. Information is subject to change and will be updated on a regular basis. BTW, comments are closed for the FAQ post. Send any info requests or corrections/clarifications to newballpark@gmail.com.

Fremont post-mortem
1. What caused the Fremont plan to fail?
A confluence of events created an environment that was not favorable for the ballpark plan. On the business side, the A's experienced conflicts with big box stores at the existing and adjacent Pacific Commons shopping center (Costco, Kohl's, Lowe's). The two sides, with PC landowner ProLogis/Catellus acting as the intermediary, tried to negotiate a parking protection and mitigation plan but were unable to come to a proper compromise. The stores inevitably held veto power over the deal and in voting their disapproval, killed the original Pacific Commons concept.
The A's were also adversely affected by changing economic conditions, namely the slumping housing market and the credit crunch. Financing of the ballpark was expected to be based largely on sales of housing development rights. Without a known recovery period, such financing had to be put on hold indefinitely. In addition, new stadium projects faced high interest rates, often several points higher than in previous years.
When the A's changed their focus on the Warm Springs alternative, they quickly gained a huge adversary in the organized populace of the Warm Springs and Weibel neighborhoods. Those residents, worried about traffic and quality of life issues, visibly and vigilantly opposed a ballpark within 1/4 mile of an area school. When A's owner Lew Wolff called on Fremont to stop all EIR work, he pointed to this opposition and the negative press that came with it as a major reason for cessation. NUMMI, the GM/Toyota auto plant near the site, also voiced its disapproval of the alternative.
2. What was the Warm Springs alternative?
A major rethinking of the baseball village concept. In the alternative, the ballpark would have been decoupled from the retail/residential areas. The new location of the ballpark would have been near the planned Warm Springs BART station, 1.25 miles east of Pacific Commons. The WS alternative would have required additional land acquisitions, possibly including land from owners not willing to sell. Decoupling of the village would have meant the higher-end lifestyle center shopping center would not have been feasible.
3. What will happen to the baseball village land?
Given current and near-term economic conditions, it's unlikely that anything will be built on the land soon. Lew Wolff has expressed interest in moving forward at some point with development of the retail and residential vision, though this would appear to be a difficult sell to city leaders without an anchor such as a ballpark. The land is currently zoned for over 4 million square feet of office space. Additional land was purchased, including upwards of $24 million in sunk costs.
4. Is Cisco Systems still involved?
During the early December Fremont work session, a representative of Cisco's real estate group expressed support for the baseball village, and beyond that, support for the A's staying in the Bay Area. That appeared to indicate Cisco's ongoing sponsorship of a ballpark in the Bay Area, wherever the final site may be.
5. If the ballpark can't be financed with real estate proceeds, how would it be financed?
The A's probably devised the original concept to cover two financial structural issues. Financial institutions preferred not to tie bonds and loans to revenue obtained directly from the ballpark because those revenues tended to fluctuate. By tying to an external and presumably more stable source, more favorable loan terms may have been available. The A's will now have to revert to ballpark sources, which will likely drive the cost of borrowing up. A additional benefit the A's may have been projecting was additional revenue that could have been used for payroll or player development, since it wasn't going to be used for a mortgage payment.

Next steps
6. What will the A's do in the near term?
The A's maintain a lease at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum through 2010, with annual extensions through 2013.
7. What about long term?
Officials from Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento have shown their interest in either retaining or moving the A's. Other cities which have been engaged in MLB team pursuits in the past include Portland, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Charlotte, Monterrey (MX), and the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area. Only San Jose officials have spoken with the A's so far.
8. When would a new ballpark open?
Given the political and economic climate, it's unlikely that any new facility would open before 2014. Any deal between the A's and a city would take at least a year to settle, perhaps more if a public vote is required.

Candidate Cities
Oakland
9. What advantages does Oakland have over other cities?
Oakland has been the A's home for over 40 years, and the sense of tradition and history there is valuable and intangible. It is strategically placed within the Bay Area, centrally within the region's 7 million residents. It maintains its status as a de facto transit nexus. The Coliseum has never had an issue with transit or parking infrastructure, and expectations about traffic loads and management were baked into the development of the complex. If a new ballpark site is found in or near downtown Oakland, there's a good chance it would also benefit from good infrastructure, as parking is plentiful and BART runs through all but the waterfront/Jack London Square area.
10. What disadvantages does Oakland have?
Oakland has generally lacked the corporate support necessary to bump up revenue for the A's from sponsorships to premium seat and suite clientele. This has forced them to do more with less, as has been famously chronicled in Michael Lewis's book Moneyball). While the Coliseum is convenient for those who drive or take BART, it is situated in a lackluster industrial neighborhood, which does little to invite or retain A's fans.
11. What is right/wrong with the Coliseum?
See the Deconstructing the Coliseum series (Part I/Part II) for an explanation.
12. What was the HOK study?
In 2000, the City of Oakland commissioned a study from noted ballpark architect HOK to look into future sites for an A's ballpark. Candidates included the Coliseum, Howard Terminal, Uptown, Oak-to-9th (O29 or Estuary), Laney College, and two sites outside Oakland city limits, Fremont (Warm Springs) and Pleasanton.
13. What happened to the sites in the study?
Several sites ended up being developed or acquired for non-stadium uses. Howard Terminal was acquired to consolidate operations for shipping giant Matson. Uptown ended up being a centerpiece for then-Mayor Jerry Brown's 10K housing plan, a mix of market rate and affordable apartments and condominiums. Oak-to-9th has been stuck in legal and development hell for several years. Peralta Community College District has shown no desire to develop Laney for a strictly commercial endeavor such as a ballpark. The Fremont site faced the challenges described previously, whereas the Pleasanton site, a.k.a. Staples Ranch, has been master planned for several phases of mixed use development.
14. Are there other sites in Oakland?
Several sites exist that have not been publicly or officially discussed as possible ballpark sites. The list includes the Broadway Auto Row Triangle, bordered by 27th St, 24th St, and Broadway. Another site frequently mentioned is the northeast corner of the decommissioned Oakland Army Base. Other sites which have been discussed include the Oakport site near the Coliseum, Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, and the 66th Ave/High St area, a.k.a. Coliseum North on this blog.
15. What happened to the Coliseum North plan?
Coliseum North was Lew Wolff's trial balloon for a development similar to what eventually was planned for Fremont. It would have included a ballpark, retail, and residential development on over 100 acres north of the existing Coliseum. The plan would have utilized some of the existing parking at the Coliseum complex. The ballpark site was anywhere from 1/2 mile to 1 mile from the existing Coliseum BART station, which Wolff felt merited a new station (cost: $75 million). The plan fell apart when area landowners, many of whom had active businesses on their parcels, balked at selling, especially at lowball prices.
16. What is the Raiders' status in Oakland?
In 2005, the Raiders and the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority negotiated a settlement which ended the team's lease in 2010. The two parties have been in talks to explore a new venue at the Coliseum.

San Jose
17. What advantages does San Jose have over other cities?
San Jose has experienced enormous growth over the last 30 years, making it the 10th largest city (population) in the US. San Jose is also a major component of Silicon Valley, where dozens of Fortune 500/1000 companies are headquartered. Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County has somewhat untapped potential for sports franchises, as only the NHL's Sharks call the area home despite the area's wealth.
18. What disadvantages does San Jose have?
The San Francisco Giants currently have territorial rights to Santa Clara County. The A's can't move to the area unless 3/4 of MLB owners vote to change T-rights. In addition, San Jose's charter is set up so that no public money could be set aside for construction or site acquisition without a public vote. San Jose's South Bay locale is less central to the Bay Area than other cities. Transit links between San Jose and the A's existing East Bay fanbase are quite limited, at least until BART is extended to the South Bay.
19. What is the status of the BART-to-Silicon Valley project?
In the November 2008 election, Santa Clara County Measure B, which proposed a 1/8-cent sales tax increase on top of a 1/4-cent sales tax increase approved in 2000. The project's Environmental Impact Report is still undergoing revision based on value engineering changes implemented in 2007. The project itself is still in its Design Phase. Construction is not scheduled to begin until later this year at the earliest, with service not scheduled to begin until at least 2018, up to 4 years after a ballpark opens in San Jose. Recently projected sales tax revenue shortfalls threaten to push out service until 2025, as VTA takes a phased approach to extending the line.
20. What is the Diridon South site?
Diridon South is a 14-acre site covering three large city blocks in the Greater Downtown San Jose area. It is located two blocks south of HP Pavilion, and immediately southwest of Diridon Station, the transit hub served by Caltrain, Amtrak, and VTA light rail and bus service. For more about the Diridon South ballpark site, click here and here.
21. What additional information do you have on San Jose?
See the posts "Lucky? San Jose" and "San Jose Looms on the Horizon" for more on the political situation.
22. What if the A's try to move to San Jose and the deal either falls through or MLB doesn't approve the move?
It is expected that the team would start to look outside the Bay Area and perhaps outside Northern California for a new home.

Santa Clara
23. What advantages does Santa Clara have over other cities?
Santa Clara is also a major component of Silicon Valley. It has a defined entertainment district, which contains the Great America theme park, plus a site for at least one stadium. Santa Clara also has its own city-owned power company, which can provide a team lower power rates and increased public borrowing potential.
24. What disadvantages does Santa Clara have?
The 49ers are working on a stadium with Santa Clara. Already, the A's and 49ers have a sort of gentleman's agreement in place to prevent either party from interfering in each other's stadium efforts. It is also unclear if Santa Clara has enough space for both 49ers and A's venues plus the required parking for both and Great America. Great America, which is owned by Ohio park operator Cedar Fair, has expressed its disapproval of the plan while offering to sell the park to the 49ers for a price.
25. What is the current status of the 49ers' stadium plan?
The City of Santa Clara is pursuing a change to the EIR which would include a doubling of use from 10 to 20 days per year. This would presumably accommodate the Oakland Raiders, who could potentially share a stadium with the 49ers.

Sacramento
26. What advantages does Sacramento have over other cities?
Sacramento has a good track record of fan support. The NBA Kings had consistent sellouts in the 80's and 90's despite terrible teams. Fandom reached a peak in the early 2000's, though it has fallen off as of late. The Sacramento River Cats, the A's AAA affiliate, have been at the top of minor league baseball attendance since the opening of Raley Field. Raley Field could conceivably be expanded to accommodate a MLB franchise.
27. What disadvantages does Sacramento have?
Sacramento is already contending with a volatile situation with the Kings, whose owners are looking for a new, privately financed arena. The citizens voted down a publicly-financed arena in 2006. While Raley Field is a premier AAA venue, the cost to expand and renovate to modern MLB standards could be upwards of $200 million. Sacramento's market is smaller than 1/2 of the Bay Area. It also lacks the corporate dollars other markets have that are considered necessary to keep a major league franchise competitive. A longer treatise on Sacramento can be found here.
28. What about the RiverCats?
The River Cats are owned by former Sharks CEO Art Savage, who is a friend of Lew Wolff from before their baseball ownership stints. Savage brokered the innovative financing deal that built Raley Field. Savage would have to be compensated by the A's if the A's moved to Sacramento. The Cats would also have to be relocated to another market, where they would have to put together another ballpark deal and would probably face a less lucrative financial situation than the one they had in Sacramento.
29. How interested is Sacramento?
New mayor Kevin Johnson (formerly of the Phoenix Suns and Cal) is working out the details of new arena plan at Cal Expo. Should that plan fail and the Kings leave town in the future, he has indicated he will work to get another major pro franchise in Sacramento. The A's are at the top of the list. The Kings are doing badly financially in their current home, ARCO Arena, but there is no clear cut relocation city on deck. Candidates include Kansas City (which has a new arena and once was home to the Kings) and Las Vegas (which has no arena deal at the moment).

Other cities
30. Portland?
During the Montreal Expos' flirtations with other cities, Portland became a leading candidate to its well-organized, well-presented bid. At this point, however, Portland's leaders are focused on two smaller projects: a new soccer stadium for a MLS franchise, and a new ballpark for the AAA Portland Beavers.
31. Las Vegas?
Mayor Oscar Goodman led the charge for a retractable dome MLB stadium. At the time, gaming interests expressed disapproval over the possibility of a private enterprise such as a MLB team getting public funds while competing with the casinos for the entertainment dollar. Goodman eventually backed away when he felt that Las Vegas was forever being used as a stalking horse. Right now the economic climate in Las Vegas is perhaps less favorable than any other market in the nation.
32. Charlotte?
Even prior to the economic collapse, Charlotte was considered an overextended market in terms of pro sports support. The Research Triangle may be more suitable as it only has one franchise and fewer sports alternatives. Both are considered medium-sized markets.
33. San Antonio?
San Antonio was another suitor in the bidding for the Expos. The effort was derailed when supporters couldn't come to an agreement as to where a ballpark should be located. Some argued for a downtown ballpark, others wanted to leverage more of the metro population by placing it closer to Austin.
34. Monterrey, MX or San Juan, PR?
Both are Spanish-language markets with large enough interim venues. Unfortunately, the bar for supporting a MLB franchise is so high that it is uncertain that either market could work in the long run, especially without brand new ballparks.

Other outcomes
35. Is there a chance of contraction?
Contraction is a situation in which one or more teams are shut down by MLB. Due to the almost everyday scheduling during the MLB season, two teams would have to be contracted. The cost to buy out two teams would run $500 million by the time the next window for contraction could occur, which would cost each remaining team $16 million. MLB would also probably face lawsuits and a threat to its antitrust exemption, which it has sought to maintain at any cost. Unless MLB experiences massive revenue reduction over the next several years, it would be hard for the league to justify contraction to the public.