Fremont City Council meeting on Tuesday

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

JANUARY 16, 2007

AGENDA

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

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

Times Are Approximate

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

Public Comment

4. ADJOURNMENT

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

Excerpts from Wolff on Ronn Owens show

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

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

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

A caller asked about the ballpark shuttle:

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

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

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

When asked about territorial rights:

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

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

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

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

---

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

Lew takes calls

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

Until then, comment away!

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

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

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

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

And now... SB 49

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take the money and run

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

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

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

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

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

Mark it down: January 16

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

Webcast link (live only during session)

49er dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 acres and an earthmover

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

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

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

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

... before finally ending at the landfill.

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

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

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

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

When is BART not BART?

Answer: When it's being pitched by VTA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fremont-A's negotiations begin in earnest

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

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

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

Some Fremont details emerge

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

Project Goals (quoted in its entirety):

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

Nothing new here.

---

Ballpark Village will contain:

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

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

---

Ballpark:

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newswrap for 12/11

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

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

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

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

Stern visits Sactown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milpitas wants to know

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

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

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

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

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

How we got to this point

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

Happy trails, Bud

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are numerous ways expansion would help:

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

What do you think about expansion?

No comment necessary

The Loaiza-Kennedy rule of ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $64,000 question has to be:

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

Let's look at alternatives for the land:

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

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

Election in Fremont?, Paying off the SJ Giants

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

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

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

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