New KRON-4 report

From today's KRON morning news is this report (with video) from Teo Torres. Some of the details are a little off, like the mention of a site at 16th and Oak Streets, which doesn't actually exist. It's more likely a reference to the Estuary (Oak-to-9th) site, which extends further east to 16th Avenue. A mention of the Hegenberger/Coliseum South site is towards the end.

Matier and Ross talk Wolff

The always intrepid Phil Matier and Andy Ross spill the beans on sites:

Financial hurdles aside, the most pressing problem for the A's is finding a suitable location.

A few weeks back, after the A's had all but given up on the Coliseum parking lot for a new ballpark because of objections from the Raiders and Warriors, De La Fuente tossed up a Hail Mary -- suggesting the team look at a waterfront site on the Embarcadero already set aside for housing and retail.

De La Fuente said the 65 acres between 16th and Oak streets, being developed by Signatures Properties of Pleasanton, could easily be expanded by about 15 acres to accommodate a ballpark.

But another source close to the discussions, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the talks, tells us the A's have all but dismissed that site. Transit and freeway access are poor, and there wouldn't be a lot of other development opportunities for the team that could help it defray its construction costs.

Another site under consideration, according to De La Fuente, is the old Home Base property on Hegenberger Road between San Leandro Street and Interstate 880, just southeast of the Coliseum.

That, sadly, is another nail in the coffin in the Estuary plan. Maybe if Wolff got a partnership going two years ago, when he joined the A's as VP of venue development, he could have put together a comprehensive Estuary development plan that included a ballpark. Alas, we'll probably never know.

A surprising note is the mention of the HomeBase site (Coliseum South). The notion of development momentum I've discussed in previous posts has to be there for a plan at the HomeBase site to work.

Recapping the situation

Tom FitzGerald of the Chronicle recaps the most recent statements by Wolff and has quotes from David Alioto, the A's VP of sales and marketing. There's little new except for the following tidbit:

The A's may have been consistent playoff contenders, but one organizational weakness is the lack of season ticket-holders. The club won't even reveal how many there are. The A's offer a variety of partial plans because they have to.

"We definitely don't have enough full-season ticket-holders,'' Alioto said. "The quality of the team has always suggested there should be more, but even in the World Series years the season ticket-holders were never there.''

I'm certain the season ticket rolls have gotten better during the A's run over the last five years, but yet they don't release the numbers? They're obviously not a charity case, but it wouldn't hurt to fully explain their "plight."

Lew Speaks

During the A's superb 3-0 victory over the The O.C., A's managing partner Lew Wolff sat down with A's TV broadcasters Glen Kuiper and Ray Fosse to discuss the team's resurgence and the recent front office moves. The highlight of the discussion was a new set of details about the new ballpark plans. As usual, Wolff didn't get too specific, but he at least gave viewers some nice details to chew on.

Quotes:

"We're very close to sitting down with the city and sharing some ideas. I hope there's some leadership there that can help us. We can't do it alone."

"We need some vision in the community and some vision in ownership."

"As you know, I'm no fan of the Coliseum."

"We need some vision in the community and some vision in ownership."

New details:

• Compact stadium, 32 - 35,000-seat capacity
• Each area in the ballpark will be a neighborhood
• 40 four-person boxes (minisuites) at the 12th row
• Trying to make everything in the ballpark lower (suites, seats) for a better fan experience
• Trying to avoid having to build a third deck (the PNC Park model)
  
• Condominiums overlooking the outfield, around 20 units (sample outside Wrigley Field)
• There is a focus on both enhancing the fan experience and keeping it affordable
  
• The team is about a month away from meeting with the city to discuss plans
  

Comments:

• The condo talk was surprising. If that doesn't get people talking about a ballpark village concept, I don't know what will. That's why it's important for Wolff that the eventual site is not just any site. It needs to be one that is attractive not just to the team, but to other developers to invest in the ballpark village or neighborhood.
• By not having to build a third deck, construction and materials costs could be cut by $50 million or more.
• So far, I like what I'm hearing. I look forward to interviewing some of the design principals when the time comes.
  

Revolutionizing the suite

Remember the old term "box seat?" It's not one that really gets used anymore except when referring to ultra-expensive luxury boxes (suites) or field level boxes, which are little more than expensive field level seats. Box seats at ballparks were usually sold in groups of six and had steel railings that defined them and cordoned them off from other boxes or seats. When the innovations called suites and club seats forever changed how stadiums and arenas were built, box seats became something of an anachronism. Now it appears that they may have a place again, if the Wolffs have their way. Don Muret from the East Bay Business Times reports on the venue development group's interest in minisuites, club boxes, and other types of seating that fill a pricing and marketing void that exists between individual club seats and luxury suites.

"We heard from a lot of teams that said they have too many suites," Wolff said. "In most markets, there aren't a lot of companies that can fill a 25-person suite consistently for 81 dates. We're thinking of having 40 traditional suites and 40 minisuites."

Lewis Wolff is the co-founder and chairman of Maritz, Wolff & Co., a privately held hotel investment firm, and Keith Wolff said he and his father are fully aware of how difficult it is to keep hotel rooms regularly occupied.

The same principle can be applied to a sports facility setting, Keith Wolff said.

The minisuites would likely have two rows of two seats, with a drink rail and two bar stool-style chairs in the back of the box, Wolff said.

"For a company that has only 20 employees (such as Maritz, Wolff) but has relationships with a lot of clients and desires a unique experience, it would be perfect," Wolff said.

For the average fan who doesn't care about such things, this is just more money talk. But for the Wolffs, it may potentially be a revolutionary idea that other teams and ballparks copy once they see it in action. The move in this direction has no doubt been shaped by the Wolffs seeing how difficult it is to regularly sell the suites in McAfee Coliseum. The sweet spot for building suites has typically been 50-60 in a new ballpark, but by lowering the number of full-sized suites to 40, the A's could limit construction costs and drive up demand, giving them a better chance at selling them out. At the same time, the creation of 6-8 person minisuites could give small businesses a more palatable option for luxury seating as well. When looking at the Bay Area pro sports landscape, it's also an important differentiator for getting patrons in this rich, but finite market.

Fremont Update

I had been playing phone tag with the folks at NUMMI, and I finally got a reply to my inquiry about the NUMMI property which has been discussed for use as a ballpark site. Follow me on this:

1. According to NUMMI, they have no official position on a ballpark.
2. There is no official position because the NUMMI Grimmer site is not being considered for a ballpark.
3. The plans to build a warehousing facility on the site are not formal yet and are still under discussion.

Confused? Now you know how I feel. The problem is that no one recently (as of a week ago or so) opened up any discussions with NUMMI about a ballpark plan. So they don't have a position. That could change quickly if Wolff or Fremont's Mayor Wasserman gets the ball rolling, at which point NUMMI would have to render a new opinion on the matter. It may end up that a ballpark could be planned on land across Grimmer from NUMMI, which would limit available parking but should be big enough for a ballpark at the very least. I'll try to get a clarification on this over the next few days.

Mt. Davis: The gift that keeps on giving

The Chronicle's Chip Johnson writes about the Raiders' PSL situation, which is not good to put it lightly. The team's poor on-field performance, coupled with the well-known availability of tickets without hefty PSL fees, makes the likelihood of PSL mass-renewals particularly bad. If PSL's (personal seat licenses) aren't bought, the citizens of Alameda County will have to foot the bill even more than they are currently:

Taxpayers are right to be ticked off because the annual subsidies of nearly $20 million will only climb if fans abandon the PSL plan when it expires at season's end -- and there is every reason to expect they will.

It doesn't take a degree in quantum physics to calculate the savings of purchasing game-day ticket because sellouts at Raiders games have been as erratic as the team's performance. For every PSL holder who opts out at the end of the season, count another brick on the pile for John Q. Public.

The fallout may hit the A's as well. Lew Wolff has said he's aware of the local public's negative perception of PSL's, and it's not insignificant. PSL's represent a huge part of the upfront financing: $75 million for the Giants in building Pac Bell/SBC Park, and $40 million for the Cardinals and their new Busch Stadium. Even the Giants aren't fully insulated, as their mediocre, Bonds-less season is making current club seat holders think twice about retaining seats after their seven-year price protection plans end.

Regardless of whether a new ballpark is publicly or privately financed (or some mix of the two), PSL's will most likely be part of the financing mix. Even SB 4 has specific language authorizing the sale of seat licenses. The question is, "Can the A's and ballpark supporters convince the public that seat licenses at a new ballpark are nothing like the Raiders' situation?" Considering the amount of talking up and selling the idea that will be required to distinguish such a plan, it's a tall order.

"Insert your company's name here" Arena

Companies are playing hardball with Arena from the SF Chronicle.

The article highlights the Coliseum Authority's continuing struggle to find a naming rights' sponsor for the Oakland Arena.

The Bonham Group represents the fifth attempt at securing sponsorship in eight years. The Warriors tried their hand beginning in 1997 when they signed their 20-year lease to play at the Arena. The team struck out and the Coliseum Authority took over the search, only to whiff on three separate pitches.

The Warriors resumed the hunt when the two sides settled their legal issues in 2003, agreeing to share the revenue from any sponsorship deal. They hired the Bonham Group 18 months ago to begin looking anew. Again, and this could be the hardest sell yet.

Bonham said it himself in 2001: "If you've taken the product to corporate America and corporate America said, 'No,' you're basically damaged goods," he told The Chronicle then. "It's a lot harder to reopen doors than to open doors. "

Part of this comes from the fact that the Arena, despite its renovation, is still not considered "new." Add to that the Warriors lackluster performance until recently and the HP Pavilion's better track record for attracting shows and events, and it becomes difficult to get a company to pony up $1 million or more per season for naming rights. It becomes a vicious cycle as well, as the revenue shortfall that comes from not having the name sold forces the Authority to drive up costs on Arena events, push even more acts to San Jose instead.

Worse, should a ballpark start construction in the next 2-3 years in the East Bay, it would probably give naming rights bidders pause since a "new" venue may be considered sexier than a refurbished one. It could also drive down the price of naming rights for both venues.

Driving around Oakland for more sites

After Sunday's 7-2 comeback win over the ChiSox (I donned a rally cap in the sixth), I drove around Oakland looking for pieces of land that might be large enough to hold a ballpark. The requirements were:

• 10 acres or larger
• Near BART, freeways, or both
• Ownership by the state, county, city, or 1-2 private owners max
• No existing development plans

I couldn't vouch for the last requirement completely, so I went on a hunch, along with some knowledge I already had about some of the neighborhoods I visited. Here are three sites:

West Oakland BART

• Location: 5th/7th St between Kirkham St and Union St. Slightly over 1 mile west of Jack London Square. 600 ft. east of West Oakland BART station.
  
• Size: 7-8 acres. No room for expansion unless street grid is severely modified. Can't expand to south because of BART overhead right-of-way and exit and entry ramps to I-880.
• The land is mostly owned by the state. The site is the southern end of the demolished Cypress structure, most of which is now Mandela Parkway. The land remains undeveloped.
• Advantages: Parking in the area already exists. Few if any displacement issues.
  
• Disadvantages: Little development potential immediately surrounding ballpark except for low-income housing and basic services. Small, narrow lot poses design issues.
  

I-880/980 Junction

• Location: Brush St between 6th and 7th St. 1/2 mile west of JLS. 1/3 mile west of nearest BART station (12th Street)
  
• Size: 4 acres at most. No room for expansion unless street grid is severely modified.
• Not clear who owns the land, but it looks like there is a single owner.
• Advantages: Central location, BART potential exists. Parking available nearby. Additional parking could be developed under 880 skyway.
  
• Disadvantages: No existing BART station nearby. Site is too small, even with annexed streets.
  

Near Estuary

• Location: Fallon St between I-880/4th St andThe Embarcadero. 1/3 mile east of JLS. 1/3 mile south of Lake Merritt BART station.
  
• Size: 10+ acres. Some room for expansion if street grid is modified.
• Land owned by some public entities (BART, Peralta CCD, City of Oakland) and private (Breznikar family/East Bay Restaurant Supply, others).
• Advantages: Near waterfront, JLS, BART, Amtrak, and I-880.
  
• Disadvantages: Limited parking immediately available. Some businesses would have to be displaced. Site is less accessible than desired because of railroad tracks, Fallon St dead-end at I-880.

None of the sites fit all of the criteria, which highlights the difficulty involved in putting together a ballpark plan.

SB 4 amended - Big Changes

SB 4 was referred to the Senate's Appropriations Committee yesterday, but not before it was amended. There isn't much strikethrough or italics in the amended version, but what was changed was very important. The Appropriations Committee has four Bay Area members: Senators Johan Klehs (Pleasanton), Leland Yee (San Francisco), Mark Leno (San Francisco), and Joe Nation (Marin/Sonoma). All are Democrats.

A hearing has not yet been scheduled in the Appropriations Committee, but it should happen soon.

Major changes:

• Eminent domain powers have been eliminated from the bill.
• The Authority will only deal with another public agency to raise funds if a plan has been approved by the appropriate local powers such a City Council, County Board of Supervisors, City or County Planning Commissions, Redevelopment Agencies, etc.
• The Senate President pro Tem (currently Don Perata, D-Oakland) no longer has the task of appointing two members. The task now falls to the Senate Rules Committee. The only Bay Area member of the Rules Committee is Joe Coto (D - San Jose).
• The Authority will not have the power to issue bonds. It will have the power to enter agreements with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank), which would then issue the bonds.
• In keeping with the last change, only the I-Bank's Board of Directors will have the final approval to issue bonds. This means the I-Bank will also have final determination over the bond repayment plan's fiscal soundness.

These are all important changes that sap much of the power from the original Authority design. It shouldn't stop projects from moving forward as long as they are responsibly drawn up, but it will provide a built-in check-and-balance system for everything that goes through the Authority.

The removal of eminent domain, in light of the Supreme Court decision handed down last Thursday, is significant. It means that residents and business in potential project areas wouldn't have to worry as much about being evicted just for the development of a stadium project. Local powers would still have the ability to use eminent domain, but the Authority itself would have nothing to do with the eminent domain effort.

Lastly, taking Don Perata out of the equation has future ramifications. The Rules Committee is made up of mostly Southern and Central California Senators, The Assembly Speaker is from Los Angeles, and the Governor's real home is in Orange County. That makes the possibility of having a nine member Authority Board with a heavy SoCal bent quite high. Time, and the eventual makeup of the first Authority Board, will tell whether that translates into priority for SoCal projects.

The Tax-Free Zone: Where the REAL war begins

Consider, if you will, a baseball team in 2005. While its prospects on the field are bright, its economic future - its home, in particular - is uncertain. However, in less than a year, the landscape will change dramatically, and the team will be able to pick from numerous new homes and locales, with suitors falling all over themselves to attract the team.

Poor attempt to channel the spirit of Rod Serling aside, this is the future that awaits the A's should SB 4 pass. How is this possible? How could a simple piece of legislation impact the A's that much?

To find the roots of the answer, one has to go back to 1986. That's when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed. In it was a provision designed to prevent teams from using tax-exempt bonds to finance stadiums and arenas. The provision called for no more than 10% of the required debt service on such bonds to be paid back using funds from the team or stadium-based sources. Instead of preventing teams from going after stadium deals, the exact opposite happened. Teams felt emboldened to construct deals with cities where the remaining 90% would be paid off using public sources such as sales taxes and tax-increment (TIF). The results were clear: 17 mostly publicly-funded new and renovated ballparks were built between 1986 and 2005. In the mid-90's, legislation was introduced by the now late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), but it never went anywhere, and Moynihan soon retired from Congress.

Yet the trend now appears to be a reversal of sorts. While the DC Ballpark follows the normal publicly-funded blueprint, the new ballparks being planned or built for the Mets, Yankees, and Cardinals have a much higher private share. The Cards are relying mostly on privately issued, taxable bonds, while the Mets and Yankees will use tax-exempt funds, but they'll pay it off using stadium sources. How is that possible? Don't ask me. Like Field of Schemes' Neil deMause, I am not a bond lawyer. Furthermore, until someone actually sues to challenge such projects regarding their legality, Mets/Yankees-type deals will continue.

That's where SB 4 comes in. SB 4 actually comes close to the point of flagrantly violating the spirit of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This is because its goal is clearly to create a statewide vessel by which tax-exempt funding can be made available to fund all manner of stadiums, arenas, and other venues. The key is that since all efforts would be initiated by the Authority and not a city, county, or the State of California, there would be no needed for messy, complicated mechanisms like, oh, voting or public hearings. That is an enormous hurdle that would suddenly be removed. It doesn't make it completely smooth sailing, however. There's still an issue of how the bonds would be paid off once they were issued. That's where multiple cities get involved.

Since it's likely that a ballpark built in Oakland, Fremont, Dublin, Sacramento, or San Jose would have the same rough costs due to small differences in land values and stable construction costs, it will be up to each bidding city to sweeten their respective bids to make them the most attractive to the Lewis Wolff and John Fisher. Here's how that could work:

A city/civic group's responsibility would be to package the terms of the debt service. The terms would include a mix of the following:

• Annual rent payments from the team
  
• Percentages of in-stadium revenues (tickets, concessions, advertising/signage, suites)
• Stadium naming rights
• Pouring rights (non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages)
  
• Revenue from non-baseball events (club rentals, tours, concerts)
• Ticket taxes
  
• Sales taxes
  
• Gross receipts taxes (paid by the public on the backend as businesses raise prices to cover the tax)
  
• Usage taxes (utilities, hotel, car rentals)
• Tax-increment funds (or TIF, based on property tax revenue past a "frozen" assessment level, within a specified area or district)
• Existing redevelopment funds
• Reduction of the team's upfront investment
  

Assuming the market is relatively fluid in Northern California, the way for a bidding city to differentiate itself from the competition would be to make the terms more favorable for the team, by removing or reducing one of the above items from the final list of debt service sources. For instance, a standard practice is for a city to require a flat rent payment per year ($3 million for argument's sake), plus a percentage of ticket revenue above a threshold of tickets sold (5% of every full-price ticket past the 2,000,000 seasonal attendance figure). A city could reduce the required rent or eliminate that extra percentage. It could eliminate rent 10-15 years early, depending on how the well the debt is being serviced. It could give the team more flexible lease end or buyout terms. The catch is that in order to prevent violating federal law, the team's source really can't be more than 10% of debt service. It could become a Safeco Field redux.

But the big kicker comes from the definition of the word "facility." While "facility" has typically been defined as the actual stadium and little else, for SB 4 the definition has been expanded to include just about anything adjacent to or associated with the venue. In addition to the venue, "facility" includes all of the following:

• Offices, parking lots and garages, access roads, streets, intersections, highway interchanges, pedestrian walkways, tunnels,bridges, transportation facilities, monuments, restaurants, stores, and other facilities providing goods and services to persons attending performances, meetings, contests, gatherings, or events at a facility.

While building a parking lot or garage is expected, some of the other stuff in the bill is virtually uncharted territory. It could include a new or revamped transit hub, a mall or shopping center, office tower(s), or the most tempting scenario knowing Wolff's background, a hotel/conference center. Of course, history shows that mixed-use projects like these aren't always guaranteed successes, and sometimes, they don't even get off the ground. Interestingly enough, Wolff's downtown LA hotel project is being built on land owned by Anschutz Entertainment Group. As mentioned in a previous post, the leading sponsor of SB 4 is none other than AEG.

The problem for bidding cities is balancing the need to find a realistic mix of sources to pay off the debt against the desire to make concessions to teams. Should multiple cities get into a competitive bidding situation for the A's, it could escalate quickly, with each city granting greater concessions with each round of proposals.

And so the turf wars start...

According to a new article by Scott Wong of the Tribune/ANG, Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty have gotten into a war of words regarding the future of the A's.

After an Argus story Friday about Haggerty's renewed call to bring the A's ball club to Fremont, De La Fuente called the newspaper to say the supervisor made that suggestion because he feels marginalized about no longer being able toserve on the board that oversees the Oakland Arena and McAfee Coliseum, the current home of the A's.

"Haggerty is feeling neglected and ignored, and sometimes you have to do things to get your name out there," said De La Fuente, who added that he didn't think the A's franchise is looking at any other Bay Area city outside Oakland to build a new ballpark. "I don't think Fremont or Pleasanton are in the picture, period. I don't think San Jose or Santa Clara are in the picture, period."

But Haggerty said that rather than respond to reports in the media about alternative sites for a baseball-only stadium, De La Fuente should be focusing his attention on Oakland's budget woes, which have forced the city to "dump" its jail population on the county.

De La Fuente replied that he settled the city's budget two weeks before it was due. "I'm taking care of my business," he added.

Haggerty, whose district includes most of Fremont, as well as Pleasanton and Livermore, said he was not intimidated by De La Fuente's "thug tactics."

I would have thought that such bile was reserved for online message boards, not the print media. So much for that. The worst part is, it's probably not going to get easier for De La Fuente and other Oakland-based supporters, especially when San Jose officially gets into the mix.

Fremont Photo Overview

I took new pictures of the two Fremont sites. Here they are, compiled into photo overview format (PDF). I will warn you, gentle reader, that you will probably get bored looking at them, simply because most of them look like this:



No, it's not a site that inspires the imagination. But it may very well be the best option when all is said and done. (If you look closely, you'll see the bales of hay in the background.)

One other note - I've added all of the photo overviews to the sidebar (right).

Fremont emerges again

From the Fremont Argus: With the number of ideal Oakland sites disappearing quickly, Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty have stepped in to start a dialogue with the A's regarding a ballpark in South Fremont. Here's a snippet:

"I'm not convinced Santa Clara County or San Jose is finished trying to attract the A's," said Haggerty, whose district includes most of Fremont, as well as Pleasanton and Livermore. "Knowing there are vultures out there, I want to do what I can to keep the A's in Alameda County."

Wolff was traveling Thursday and did not return phone calls, but he did indicate he was interested in sitting down with the supervisor, Haggerty said.

That certainly gets the ball rolling. The article notes that not only Warm Springs ballpark site is possible, but there may be opportunities at Pacific Commons, a new shopping center that opened last year. Pacific Commons is 2 miles west of the planned BART station, on the other side of I-880. I'll post pictures of both later today and post a Fremont photo overview.

The news is somewhat serendipitous, because I had no knowledge of the officials' efforts when I fired off an e-mail to Fremont's planning department yesterday. I asked about NUMMI, which owns much of the Warm Springs site. NUMMI's current plans are to build a warehousing and distribution facility to facilitate "just in time" delivery of auto components, though that certainly could change if the aforementioned officials got involved.

Updating my previous post on Warm Springs, NUMMI (as per the Warm Springs Specific Plan) has expressed its desire for Fremont to limit the types of development in allows in the area surrounding the plant. This could actually prove beneficial for ballpark supporters, as they also suggested to the City of Fremont that development plans shouldn't have housing built immediately north of the NUMMI plant, as residents may not enjoy living next to a 24/7-operating heavy industrial site with hundreds of trucks entering and leaving on a regular basis.

Pacific Commons is another matter. While there land there is vast and ripe for development, it's not within walking distance of the planned BART station, which is scheduled for completion sometime in 2010.

Update (8:30 AM): I called NUMMI this morning for more on the warehousing/distribution center. No official comment as of yet, perhaps none until late in the day or Monday.

SB 4 and Eminent Domain news

Two more newspapers have written about CA SB 4:

• LA Daily News: Bill offering tax breaks for sports, entertainment centers faces vote
• SD Union Tribune: New play is possible in stadium financing
  

As reported yesterday, SB 4 passed with no opposition in the AEST&IM committee, and is slated to go Assembly's Appropriations committee, then the floor for a full Assembly vote, and finally the governor's desk.

Moving over to the topic of eminent domain: The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain is legal (for non-public purposes) by a 5-4 vote. This clears the way for the DC Ballpark land acquisitions to proceed, and may move the Florida Marlins' ballpark plans forward if they can bridge the funding gap. Much of the land near the Orange Bowl that would be used for the ballpark is residential, and if landowners aren't willing to sell, the city of Miami could turn to eminent domain to acquire property.

More on SB 4

Yesterday, CA SB 4 was approved in the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media (I'll call it AEST&IM for short) on a 7-2 vote, with 1 abstention. The one local committee member was District 24 Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn (Campbell), who was credited with the abstention.

The matter is being referred to the Assembly's Appropriations Committee, where local members include Leland Yee and Mark Leno of San Francisco, Joe Nation of Marin, and Johan Klehs of Castro Valley. From there, it's short trip to the Assembly Floor and then to the Governor's desk, since it's already passed the Senate. While the bill was in the Senate, it was approved by Don Perata (Oakland) on the floor and Elaine Alquist (San Jose) on the floor and in the Senate's Appropriations Committee.

Surprisingly, there's been little resistance to the bill, even though the ramifications are enormous. The Orange County Register is one of the few newspapers that offered an editorial on the bill. My read on it is that it gives this new Authority the power to use the state's credit rating and bonding ability without adding any liability to the state, which I find truly astonishing. If it passes, there will be a bread line at the Authority's door as every supporter for every conceivable stadium, arena, amphitheater, and concert hall project will be waiting with their hands out. Membership on the Authority's board will be one of the cushiest positions in the state, as members will be able to pick and choose which projects they'll support. I can't handicap the bill's likelihood of passage, but since the Governor is a pro-business guy with many links to the entertainment industry, I'd have to think there's a good chance he'll rubber stamp it. If the bill passes, there are some serious questions beyond the funding issue I brought up yesterday:

• What rules will they draw up on how to solicit funds?
• What criteria will they use to determine a project's worthiness?
• Will they demand minimum amounts of private investment in projects?
• What projects would be considered too small or large to fund?
• At what point would the Authority use or threaten to use eminent domain?

Stay tuned for more on SB 4 as it works its way through Sacramento.

State-funded stadiums?

The Chronicle (thanks, Ballpark Digest) mentions a bill making its way through the California Legislature that would create a statewide governing body that would help fund, construct, and run various types of public entertainment venues, namely sports venues. The bill is CA SB 4, introduced by State Senator Kevin Murray of Culver City.

Unlike most other states, California has left funding for sports venue projects entirely in the hands of cities and counties. With the budget crunch seriously affecting city coffers, most cities have had little financial wherewithal or interest in publicly financing any new stadiums or arenas. The bill aims to create a governing body called the California Public Performance Facilities Authority, that would acquire land, issue bonds for construction, sell personal seat licenses and naming rights agreements, build and maintain the facilities. In other words, soup to nuts.

The question to pose here is, "Can this type of authority work in a state as large as California?" The NorCal/SoCal divide is alive and well, and it shows up when large projects have to be debated, such as the Bay Bridge Retrofit or water diversion. First, lets look at the projects that could be undertaken by the Authority:

1. A's ballpark in Oakland/Alameda County
2. San Francisco 49ers stadium
3. San Diego Chargers stadium
4. Sacramento Kings arena
5. New LA football stadium to attract an NFL team
6. San Jose Earthquakes stadium
   

That's over $2 billion in projects right there. But that's not all. The Authority would also fund infrastructure associated with these projects. It could also fund the construction of practice facilities, theaters and concert halls, race tracks, and just about anything else associated with live performances.

Some other notes:

• The Authority would by administered by a nine-member Board of Directors. Five members would be appointed by the Governor (Schwarzenegger), two by the Senate President Pro Tem (Don Perata, Oakland), and two by the Assembly Speaker (Fabian Nunez, Los Angeles)
• Bonds would be issued by the Authority, with revenue from each facility used to pay back the debt. (I'm not sure if this works under federal tax law.) As far as I can tell, no other input from the state would be required, which gives the Authority a significant amount of unfettered power.
• The Authority could work directly with the California Infrastructure Development Bank instead of through the Legislature to obtain funds
  
• One facility's revenues could not be used to pay back another's debt.
• Debt incurred by the Authority would not be considered state debt (this is probably the federal tax loophole).
• There would be a 40-year limit on the term of any issued bonds.
• The bonds would be tax-exempt.
• There's no description of any remedies that would be taken should revenue shortfalls make it difficult to repay debt.
• The Authority would have eminent domain powers just like those of a city or county. Eminent domain is used at times for redevelopment purposes.
  
• The bill is supported by Anschutz Entertainment Group, which owns the privately-owned Staples Center, LA Kings NHL franchise, the LA Galaxy and San Jose Earthquakes MLS teams, and the SF Examiner. AEG has stakes in the LA Lakers, Qwest Communications, and other wide-ranging ventures. Finally, AEG has been actively involved in the effort to attract an NFL franchise to LA.
  

The Sacramento Ballpark Authority, which built Raley Field, was cited as a successful example of this type of governing body. But how well does it scale? If this bill passes, we'll soon find out. Proponents will say this gives California teams the ability to bridge the gap in funding between them and out-of-state competitors. Opponents will say this looks like a huge, state-mandated pork project authority with no real public oversight. For each Sacramento Ballpark Authority, there's also an Oakland Football Marketing Association.

The Trib is uneasy

Reflecting some fans' growing sense of unease about the Wolff's stadium efforts, the Oakland Tribune printed a new op-ed piece wondering if Wolff is really serious about keeping the A's in Oakland.

There is a question of whether this "paranoia" (their term, not mine) is grounded in reality. Frankly, a little "skepticism" (my term, not theirs) is healthy, since it tends to lead to a more realistic view of the situation. Unfortunately, there are some issues that can't be avoided, and they are contributing to this unease:

• Oakland is running out of sites. Counting Wolff's dismissal of the Coliseum south lot, there are now only two sites left from the original seven in the HOK study. Those are the Oak-to-9th site (issues detailed in last night's post), and perhaps Fremont (which has had no public discussion recently).
  
• Sites along BART corridors are disappearing quickly, as large mixed-use transit village developments are being constructed and planned near existing BART stations.
• The sites that have been discussed have high acquisition and remediation (cleanup) costs associated with them, which can drive up the cost of a ballpark tens of millions of dollars.
• There has been little discussion of the financing issue, which promises to be the most divisive and difficult of all.
• There has been no effort to raise awareness among the voting public. The closed manner in which Wolff and his development team is proceeding is partly to blame for this.
  
• Mayoral support is non-existent.
  

Wolff still has several months left to complete his local search, after which he'll make some sort of announcement. I personally feel that it is still possible to get some sort of plan moving forward, but the A's really need to involve the public more - and that doesn't just mean politicians, I'm talking citizens and fans.

There are, of course, the inevitable questions that I get daily about the A's moving to Vegas. Las Vegas has plenty of issues of its own, with the small TV market, the casino industry's influence (they aren't willing to take MLB games off the wagering boards, and they are opposed to a publicly-financed ballpark), and the lack of a good tentative ballpark situation (Cashman Field only holds 9,300 people and is not a good expansion candidate). Portland? Maybe, if they can get the financing details right (I have doubts about Portland's ability to contain costs, and the mayor is anti-ballpark).

Report from Measure DD Coalition Meeting

Just came back from the meeting at Lake Merritt's Lakeside Center. There were more than 20 people in attendance, all representing different interests and community groups. The Coalition was created to give the community a voice in how $198 million in Measure DD funds should be spent. A major focus for the past year has been the Oak-to-9th development, which is currently awaiting a completed environmental impact report (EIR). One of the agenda items was the approval of a set of recommendations regarding the creation of open space at the site, to be given to Oakland's Planning Commision, City Council, and others who could help shape the final development plan. The recommendation received all "yes" votes with three abstentions (one of which was me).

I was then given some time to open up the Oak-to-9th discussion to the subject of a ballpark, which is not in the current plans or EIR. Absent any kind of real proposal, I asked the only question that could be objectively answered by the Coalition members:

• Is it feasible to place housing (Signature Properties), open space (as recommended by the Coalition), and a ballpark on the site?

While some members refrained from rendering an opinion due to the lack of information available, many who did said a ballpark was definitely not feasible. The reasons listed were varied and numerous:

• Not enough space. Either the housing or open space would have to be sacrificed for a ballpark, and neither party was ready to give anything up to accommodate a ballpark. The ballpark itself could eliminate up to 75% of the open space in Signature's plan, and their plan has less than the ideal amount of open space according to the Coalition.
• Traffic. The Embarcadero is a simple two-lane road that will have trouble accommodating traffic from 3,100 new housing units (6,000+ residents) alone.Adding a ballpark could add ten times the number of cars to the area, which would create instant gridlock.
• Transit. The distance from BART is a factor. Not having BART there might push fans to drive to the ballpark, which would increase gridlock even more.
• Visual impact. After I was asked what a ballpark's footprint could be, I spouted off some numbers: 15 acres without parking, building at least 100 feet high without light standards. The response to that information was not positive, as the ballpark would significantly block the view from the freeway and parts inland, including Lake Merritt.
• Parking. There is no existing infrastructure for large amounts of parking in the development plan. Even the potential for under-the-freeway parking only yields a few hundred spaces. No open space could be used to develop parking, either.

Other comments were made about resistance to public financing (Raiders deal), Wolff's true motives in his ballpark search (Vegas?), and the suitability of the Coliseum site (prematurely dismissed, and not for a good reason). There was also a sense that this idea was just being thrown out there without much planning, especially considering Wolff and Ghielmetti haven't yet had any formal discussion about sharing the site.

So there you have it. These are the kinds of issues that any ballpark effort faces. While it's easy to view things through green-colored glasses and believe that everyone likes baseball, the reality is that it is often not considered worth bending over backwards to accommodate a team or owner. And it's clear from the meeting tonight that one or more parties, who have both been working over a year to get this project going, would have to sacrifice something significant to get a ballpark built at the Estuary. That's not going to happen quickly or easily, if it happens at all.

I'll have some commentary on this tomorrow.

Also, thanks to the Coalition for giving me ample time to gather comments. Considering I arrived there without advance notice, they were more than accommodating.

Wolff likes "neighborhoods"

CoCo Times columnist Neil Hayes spent some time recently with Lew Wolff and his family at A's games, and from all appearances, Wolff is getting more and more attached to the team with each passing day. There was little new on the ballpark front, except for a small nugget towards the end of the article:

(Wolff) envisions a new ballpark divided into "neighborhoods."

What exactly are "neighborhoods" in a ballpark? Generally they are distinct seating areas within the stadium that give them a separate, though not necessarily segregated, feel from other areas of the park. This can be accomplished by breaking up the grandstand in the multiple structures with varying heights, as was done at Petco (San Diego), Comerica (Detroit), Citizens Bank (Philadelphia), and Great American (Cincinnati). At field level, it's a little easier to foster neighborhood environments with the tiered pricing structure. The Coliseum, for instance, has always had distinct neighborhoods in the MVP sections which hold season ticket holders, and the left and right field bleachers, which are a younger demographic and unique unto themselves. SBC also has neighborhoods in the bleachers in straightaway left (Bonds Squad), center (family bleachers), and the arcade (party atmosphere).

The Coliseum and SBC's development of neighborhoods was more an organic, evolutionary process than Petco, where it's intentional. The Western Metal Supply building in the left field corner not only holds party suites, but it serves as an anchor for a party atmosphere. The Beachers section in center is the family-friendly spot with the big sandbox, while the seats that jut out into right field act as a soapbox for hecklers. Even the mezzanine club level is broken up into three sections: first base, home plate, and third base.

Whether or not the creation of neighborhoods will ultimately be successful is dependent on how fans take to the concept. A major goal is to get fans circulating around the ballpark to explore each of the different neighborhoods, sample concessions, and foster the larger ballpark community. Another goal is to get fans to find a place they can call home within the ballpark, get season tickets, commune with others in their neighborhood, and over time become fixtures or institutions as they pass the experience on to their children, grandchildren, etc. The potential upside is that those season ticket rolls may rise as a result. The downside is that the ballpark itself will have a natural sense of discontuity which might make it hard to foster an overall crowd energy, especially if fans are more likely to mill around than sit and stay focused on a game. In the end, it's seat pricing that's going to be the determining factor. It's not uncommon for fans to be priced out of being full season ticket holders, which then leads to becoming partial season ticket holders, then occasional patrons, and finally to not being able to afford a game at all. It's a difficult balance to strike, and there are plenty of examples of teams going the price-hike route (Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Giants) while few others have managed to keep prices reasonable despite having a new or renovated park (Angels).