Chavez chimes in on ballpark

By now, many of you have already seen yesterday's article by Joe Roderick in the Merc about third baseman Eric Chavez's continued puzzlement with the lackluster attendance at the Coliseum. The important thing to note is that Chavez doesn't blame the fans, he blames the venue.

Chavez has been both praised and criticized for his candor and at times too-honest demeanor, so this should come as no surprise. Consider, for a moment, Chavez's history. He's a born-and-bred San Diegan, going far enough to name his newborn son Diego (though the inspiration could have come from Diego Rivera or Maradona instead, I suppose). His ties to the San Diego area are still strong despite the fact that he and his family live in Scottsdale in the offseason. San Diego opened Petco Park last year, leaving Oakland as the only multipurpose facility to host a MLB team in California.

Since the A's are the only team left in this predicament, it's almost guaranteed to finish last among the five California teams in attendance every year until a new ballpark is built. Here's how we can expect them to finish this season based on current totals and per-game averages:

1. LA Dodgers (#2 in MLB, 3.6 million projected)
2. LA Angels (#3 in MLB, 3.4 million total - season completed)
3. SF Giants (#5 in MLB, 3.18 million projected)
4. SD Padres (#6 in MLB, 2.88 million projected)
5. Oakland A's (#19 in MLB, 2.12 million projected)
   

When the numbers are presented in this manner, the difference between the A's and the other four teams is stark. I'll go into this further in the next post.

The Trouble With Transit

There were a slew of articles in the last week about different BART projects and their respective funding difficulties. Here's a recap:

• Oakland Airport BART Connector - BART is looking to private sources to build and fund the remainder of the Airport Connector. For now the project is a 3.2-mile people mover or monorail on an elevated track between the Coliseum BART station and Oakland International Airport, with a couple of stops in between along Hegenberger. For whatever reason, federal funds for it were not included in the huge transportation bill passed earlier in the summer. The problem here is that privatizing the connector will increase the cost to riders, to the tune of $5 per ride. The effect on the ballpark project is that this effectively eliminates the connector as an option for service from Coliseum BART to the ballpark development area, due to its cost and the fact that no one is intervening to propose a ballpark development area extension. Just for comparison, it should be pointed out that the current fare from Millbrae to the Coliseum station is $4.65.
• BART-to-San Jose Extension - VTA just came out with new ridership and cost figures. The cost of the project is now $4.7 billion instead of the $4.2 billion projected in 2003, and ridership estimates are up 33% due to higher density development plans. While the project would mostly be funded by a 1/4-cent sales tax that could go for 25-30 years, VTA is also looking for $973 million in federal funding as well. VTA also revised its service opening date from 2015 to 2018. Should that proceed on schedule, there would be an 7-8 year gap between the opening of a ballpark in downtown San Jose and the start of BART service to the area.
• BART-to-Warm Springs Extension - The above link also indicates that the Warm Springs extension is dependent on the eventual extension to San Jose, even though Warm Springs would be built first. If WSX doesn't get built, that's one selling point Fremont ballpark proponents won't have at their disposal.

Oddly enough, since none of these projects were being funded in the recent transportation bill, none could be cut or delayed as a result of post-Katrina/Rita cost-cutting efforts.

AP article - little new

An AP article that appears in Saturday's Chronicle provides another recap of the ballpark situation. Most of it is available in other reports and on this blog as well. There was one new piece of info that I found telling:

Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente said the city is committed to evaluating the potential of the area where the A's want to build and will dedicate someone to the job but there are many hurdles.

"More than money, there are definitely going to be other issues. You have a lot of challenges in that site but that doesn't mean that that cannot be done," De La Fuente said. "We're going to be working with them and hopefully we'll arrive to some great solution."

"Committed to evaluating the potential" and "will dedicate someone to the job" do not sound promising. I understand that both the city and the county are in a budget crunch, but someone should have been steering this in City Hall two weeks ago.

AM ownership chart

To illustrate how difficult it may be to get a quality radio deal, I've assembled a chart that lists every Bay Area AM radio station, signal strength, owner, and other information. The stations in gray are not considered likely candidates for the A's due to existing programming incompatibilities or lack of signal, or previous history. The stations in blue appear to be the best candidates. That isn't to say it can't change - the sale of Disney/ABC and Susquehanna stations may alter the local radio landscape significantly. Click on the graphic to download or view a larger version.



An explanation of the data:

• Power is listed in kilowatts (kW)
• The FCC has a good explanation of station classes here.
• Sale pending indicates that the station or its parent company is for sale.
  
• Applied "xxkW-Day" or "xxkW-Night" indicates that the station has applied for an approval for signal boost. Because of the various issues involved, changes have to go through a lengthy review and commenting process.
  

The station candidates:

• KSFO - Many of you may remember KSFO's lengthy run as the A's flagship. That ended when their format switched from oldies to talk. Last year KSFO started broadcasting Raiders games. KSFO may be interested in broadcasting the A's again, but that would be largely dependent on the sale of station as part of Disney's radio portfolio. KSFO is managed by KGO's Mickey Luckoff.
• Both KNEW-910 and KQKE-960 (formerly KABL) had turns broadcasting the A's in the recent past. Both received complaints due to their weak signal. Both are owned by Disney and run out of Oakland. Both are also run by former KNBR helmer Bob Agnew. Either could be a candidate for the A's when the dust settles. KQKE may be more likely due to the financial status of the Air America network.
  
• There's a good chance that KTCT (KNBR-1050) will stay as it is because of the numerous deals KNBR has with local teams. Having two stations reduces the chances of overlapping programming, but it's also expensive to fill in programming during other hours. The next owner may decide sooner or later to either reprogram or sell KTCT because it's too expensive to keep the status quo.
• KNTS is a pretty small station out of the Peninsula. It probably won't be a player unless they get the FCC's approval to pump 50,000 watts 24/7. If they do, they'll move their transmitter to the other side of the bay in Hayward. Right now KNTS is mostly a talk station, but they have the most game broadcasts of any station other than KNBR, which makes them a potentially compelling candidate.
• KMKY is the Radio Disney station targeted to kids and Disney aficionados. Since the station was more of a constant promotional tool for the mother ship than anything else, it's likely that the new owner wouldn't be interested in continuing the same format.
  
• In May, Infinity converted former "young country" station KYCY into KYou Radio, the first station in the United States to broadcast podcasts. They ran into some legal difficulty soon after that, but as of now they're still kicking. Oddly enough, the station accepts podcasts, but does not make podcasts of its broadcasts available to the public . If the experiment fails, Infinity may look to sell since the station historically hasn't been much of a ratings powerhouse. Infinity also applied for a signal boost and transmitter move to the South Bay.
• KLIV is a small news station out of San Jose. I can't see KLIV being a flagship station due to its limited range, but if the A's wanted to have lower power North Bay and South Bay stations to cover the entire Bay Area, it's a possibility.
  

The corporate suitors have some restrictions as dictated by the FCC. The most important one is that no one can own more than 8 stations in the same market or 5 of the same class in a single market. That has forced both Infinity and Clear Channel to make station swaps and sales for the sake of compliance. If one of those behemoths ends up buying either the Disney or Susquehanna properties, one or more stations just might become available. Another company considered a frontrunner is Citadel Broadcasting, which has stations in mostly smaller markets.

Neil Hayes column

Contra Costa Times columnist Neil Hayes has a pretty scathing indictment of the fanbase and the attendance woes in today's edition. Like Hayes, I don't have an explanation for it. The worst part of it is that it's the one negative that the local media immediately latch onto here. I've heard comments from Gary Radnich and Raj Mathai, and I had tuned into other local newscasts, I probably would've heard the same from their counterparts.

Here's a different perspective on attendance:

• The A's drew 48,203 total during the three-game series against the Twins, including a large number of no-shows on Tuesday night due to the storm remnants that came through the area.
• The Yankees yesterday drew 50,382 on Wednesday night alone, and have averaged more than 50,000 for the season.
• The A's will be down in total season attendance for the second straight season unless they average 40,000 per game for the final seven games of the homestand. I project the final number to be slightly over 2.1 million for the season, which places them 2-5% below either 2004 or 2003 figures.
  

In attempting to analyze the situation, I posted a diary on Athletics Nation, along with a poll that asks which group is hardest to market to: the casual fan, the fringe hardcore fan, the small business person, or a large corporate entity. Take a look at it and vote. I don't think the situation can be solved by simply winning a playoff or World Series, or even by building a new ballpark. My feeling is that there needs to be a bigger effort to build the die-hard fanbase along with a push to promote the family experience at the ballpark, which is far underrated and isn't exploited enough.

Some appear to be either content with or resigned to the idea that the A's won't draw more than 2.1-2.2 million per season in the current situation. Frankly, that shows a lack of creativity. There needs to be more done to build the culture that is the A's fanbase. There are no simple or automatic ways to do this, but it should be what the A's ownership shoot for. The ownership group can't be happy with this, and there has to be a renewed focus in the offseason. As clever as the "A's Brand" ad campaign has been, it's had a limited effect on attendance. People still come for the usual promotions and giveaways.

Here's an idea for A's marketing: Put fans in the ads. Interview the diehards. Have them explain why they love the A's and the game. Show shots of parents raising their kids to be A's fans. Do a TV ad of a local East Bay family who has 3 generations of proud A's fans. Promote the culture. More than any other sport, baseball mines the mythology and history of itself. Sometimes it goes a little overboard in that respect, but there are ways to tap into those emotional links without appearing smug or aggrandizing. There's room for the A's Brand campaign as well.

---

One item from the column that could get easily overlooked: Hayes' plea for the A's to invest in their own radio station. With Bob Agnew hinting at changes at KNEW and KQKE, there may be some interesting news about that in the offseason.

News roundup

Some bits of news from here and there....

... but first, I've had this asked of me frequently the last couple of weeks, so I should answer it: I haven't heard anything new regarding stadium plans. In fact, I doubt we'll hear anything significant for the rest of the regular season, and throughout the playoffs for that matter. November is when the business operations side of the team takes precedence over the baseball side, so we should hear more then. After that, the hot stove league starts going, then the winter meetings, free agent signings and trades, and before you know it, April 1 will be upon us.

Two items from the same Matier and Ross column last Saturday:

• Ex-KNBR program director Bob Agnew has resurfaced to helm Clear Channel AM stations KNEW-910 (right-wingers) and KQKE-960 (left-wingers). Though both are talk stations, both also have sports programming, and it wouldn't be surprising to see the A's on one (or even both) stations next season. Now, if you told me in April that Agnew would be fired and would end up with a competing station with the possibility to broadcast A's games, I know what I would've said.
• Ron Dellums is expected to announce whether he'll run for the Oakland mayoral position by October 1. The IDLF camp is keeping close tabs on Dellums, who is probably the council president's only significant opposition right now.
  

From Reuters: Contrary to my previous update on Susquehanna, buyers for the different media properties (radio/cable) may be chosen by the end of the week.

San Diego and Washington are both mulling over ballpark village projects. San Diego is deciding on tall housing towers, which have their opponents in the project's nearby neighbor, the Port of San Diego. Washington is still in the conceptual phase, as there's still disagreement on everything from the orientation of the field to the facade to the height of buildings near the ballpark. Yet the District is contractually obligated to have it open by the beginning of the 2008 season, which is only 29+ months away. Tick tick tick...

That brings us back to the Oakland ballpark situation. If there's going to be any hope of having a ballpark open by the start of the 2009 season, Oakland officials are going to have to make serious progress on the land acquisition and rezoning effort. It's going to be much more difficult in Oakland because of the sheer size of the land to be acquired - 100 acres as opposed to only 20 for the DC project and 7 for the remaining San Diego ballpark village land, which has already been acquired but is going through final approval.

Chip Johnson's column on the Hegenberger Wal-Mart notes that something is being planned for the HomeBase (Coliseum South) location. I'm trying to find out more about this.

Attendance last night was an abysmal 15,262, and don't think that Wolff, who was in the audience last night, didn't notice. To reach last season's attendance total, the A's will have to average over 34,000 per game for the rest of the homestand. I'm doing my part by going tonight and I'm bringing coworkers tomorrow for an "offsite team building session." People, let's get out there!

Tidbit on Susquehanna Media (KNBR)

Radio Ink has a brief note and a quote about the sale Susquehanna Media. Yesterday was the deadline to submit bids, and it appears that it will take some time to sort them out.

The York Daily Record also has an article on the deadline and sale as well.

SF Weekly analyzes ballpark design

An engaging report by SF Weekly's Tommy Craggs discusses the evolution modern ballpark design, and how the design presented last month by Lew Wolff (drawn up by 360 Architecture) fits into the picture. There are excellent quotes by consultant John Pastier and architect/writer Phillip Bess, who wrote the excellent treatise on ballpark architecture, City Baseball Magic. The article also delves into the retro trend and the New Urbanist movement, from which the Oakland concept was spawned.

SB 4 dies on the vine

The legislature ended its short session last night without SB 4 coming to a vote, which means any proponents will have to try again next year. As I noted earlier, the bill went through some major changes in terms of the bond approval mechanism, effectively neutering it. This effectively keeps the status quo, where groups looking for tax-free bond financing will have to go strictly through municipalities and joint powers authorities, and if public sources are required such as taxes, votes will be required.

Recap of Selig speech

Bud Selig's speech and subsequent Q&A session was about an hour long total. The speech was a brief history of Selig's time as an owner, then as the commissioner. Not naturally the most charismatic of speakers, Selig's sporadic eye contact with the audience made the delivery fairly dull, and the speech an exercise in self-aggrandizement. As expected, Selig didn't say anything to encourage San Jose supporters. In fact, his statements should provide some hope for Oakland supporters, though no one should be proclaiming Selig as the savior of baseball in Oakland just yet.

Notes: The audio stream of the event will be played on KQED-FM on Friday night at 8 p.m. An AP article focused largely on steroids is now available on the Chronicle's SF Gate site. Daniel Brown from the Merc also wrote an article more geared towards territorial rights. Channels 5, 7, and 11 were present getting video.

Selig was initially flanked by former Commonwealth Club president Joe Epstein and somewhat surprisingly, County Assessor Larry Stone, better known as an irritant for East Bay supporters. Stone emceed the event, and before he finished his introduction of Selig, he plugged the MLB-to-San Jose effort, almost on cue.

Notes from the speech portion:

• MLB will surpass last season's league attendance record by the end of the current season.
• He talked up the significant rise in the value of the Dodgers franchise when it changed hands from the O'Malleys to Fox and finally to Frank McCourt. He did not let slip an estimate of the Expos' eventual selling price.
• Moneyball was mentioned as a subject that is "theological in nature."
  
• Revenue sharing, payroll taxing (luxury taxes), and the debt service rule are the base of the current financial structure. He sees little need to change the structure in the near future.
• The speech was littered with quotes from Mark Twain, Thomas Wolfe, and Doris Kearns Goodwin.
• Steroids is cheating. The only other substance mentioned was andro, and only as a historical reference. No mention of HGH.
  
• He noted that in the midst of all of the media's criticism of how MLB handled steroids during the 90's, he looked up articles written during the era and saw only "11 articles that mentioned steroids."

The Q&A was done via responses to selected questions the audience submitted on comment cards. Only 10 questions were answered, one of which was a throwaway question about the commish's relationship with George Steinbrenner. Here's the skinny on the question segment:

1. What happened to the Reggie Jackson group's bid to buy the A's?

• Selig claims it was Schott/Hofmann that decided to not entertain Jackson. He acknowledged that this contradicts Schott's initial statements on the matter, but insisted that it was the ownership group that made the decision, noting that the commissioner's office doesn't have to time interfere with these things. MLB will only step in when it's time to evaluate a group's financial worthiness.
  

2. Any thoughts on the idea of limits to the number intentional walks a batter can receive (Bonds rule)?

• Not happening. No way baseball will change rules for a single individual.
  

3. Is a salary cap in the future?

• "I'm comfortable where we are," Selig said.
  

4. What's being done about tight-fisted owners who pocket revenue sharing money instead of spending it on players?

• "That phenomenon is a myth that somehow keeps getting perpetuated," said Selig. According to Selig, the league shares the books with the owners, and the payers (big market "have" teams) wouldn't stand for any prolonged effort by other owners to stash the money. Again, he reinforced the notion that the baseball's economic model is good.
  

5. What about the influence of international players?

• This gave Selig the chance to tout the World Baseball Classic. He did this during the speech as well.
  

6. Is the DH rule going to change anytime soon?

• The DH was one of the few things on which he agreed with former A's owner Charlie Finley (Yes for the AL). He's happy with the way it stands since the teams in the two leagues are happy with the existing rules. (A good follow-up would've been to ask for his take on using the DH in NL-hosted games and the hitting pitcher in AL-hosted games, but there was no opportunity for follow-ups.)
• The only change he might see happening is a geographical redistribution of teams, but he didn't get specific.
  

7. What is the league doing about steroids and its impact on records?

• Without outright saying it, Selig indicated that he's leaving the records alone and will keep them asterisk-free. We'll see if that holds up if any other high-profile sluggers are shown to have used.
  

8. What about the exclusivity of territorial rights?

• Repeating a statement he made weeks ago, Selig said, "You couldn't run the sport without internal rules and you can't make exceptions."
• The Giants' territorial rights were affirmed when they made the huge private investment in SBC Park.
• His feelings on relocation are heavily shaped by the Braves' move to Atlanta. Besides the territorial rights issue, he appears to be stridently anti-move, though his previous statements about the situation in Miami raise questions about that.
• Regarding San Jose, he said that "San Jose is a great location, but that's not the issue. We have to protect the status quo. We're clearly not going to expand."
  

9. Epstein posed a follow-up: "Is there a process by which a vote could be taken by the owners to overturn these rights?"

• "No. It's not a question of overturning rights," replied Selig. I'm not certain if the response meant that he would not allow it to come to vote, or whether he was rendering his opinion on the outcome of a vote. Surely the owners would not vote for anything that could potentially threaten their own financial well-being.
  
• He trumpeted the party line about "staying focused on Oakland." The question of what would happen if the Oakland deal didn't succeed was not asked.
  

---

The San Jose boosters I overheard upon leaving didn't appear discouraged, least of all Larry Stone. While Selig dismissed the idea of overturning the Giants' territorial rights, that's the weakest option because it's the least realistic. Maury Brown of Business of Baseball and the Oregon Stadium Campaign and I have had this discussion in the past, and I agree with him that for the A's to move anywhere, whether it's San Jose, Portland, Vegas, or Sacramento, the bidding group needs to make an extremely compelling case - not just to a single affected owner, but to all 30 owners and MLB. Oakland, with its location and access, is hard to argue against. Any bids to move the team will have to be comprehensive, probably including packaged TV and radio deals and lists of pre-committed corporate sponsors (because those are Oakland's weak points currently). Without those requirements, I doubt any bid would be entertained.

Remember that in Wolff's press conference last month, he talked about the ability of the East Bay business market to fill the 40 luxury suites and 40 minisuites (plus club seats) that he wants to build in the new ballpark. It stands to reason that he'll compare that to other market studies, determine the costs and risk factors, and then decide - if it even gets to that point.

Commonwealth Club - Selig appearance

I'll be attending tonight's Commonwealth Club event featuring Bud Selig in San Jose. I may be able to ask him a question. What would you ask the commish? I have a list so far, and I except to check off most of those questions as the night progresses. Expect an update later tonight.

Business Journal picks up the SB 4 trail

An article in the San Jose Business Journal summarizes the current situation with SB 4 and has comment from local politicians from Fremont and San Jose. Though the piece has a definite South Bay focus, the financing structure created once SB 4 passes would be available to every city, county, and joint powers authority in the state that wants to finance a public venue, including Oakland and the JPA. As noted in an earlier post, it could create an competitive bidding environment among cities, with the winner providing the most favorable deal for a team owner.

There should be some potential benefit for San Jose Earthquakes fans. AEG, which has threatened to move the Earthquakes as early as after the end of the 2005 season, is on record as supporting the bill, so it knows the ramifications. The Santa Clara County Fairgrounds, which has been touted as a possible site for a huge soccer complex with a 25,000-seat soccer stadium at the heart of it (like those in Dallas and LA), would become a much more likely possibility.

Radio and SB 4 news

Any pursuit of KTCT-1050 AM as the A's flagship may soon be rendered moot when Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff decides which bidder wins the right to purchase its radio properties. Bidding is open for Susquehanna Media until September 13, though the company isn't releasing any other details. The parent company, Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff, has already divested itself of its Internet consulting business, SusQtech, and its dinnerware business as well. Top suitors include Infinity, Clear Channel, Cox Radio, and Entercom. Business continues at KTCT, which is applying for the abililty to broadcast at 50,000 watts at night as well as during the day.

---

SB 4 continues its march through legislature. Next up is a vote in the Assembly's Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy, which should be a breeze since the potential impact of large numbers of construction jobs makes the bill (at least within the limited context the JED&E committee works) a near no-brainer. According to the Assembly's published schedule, the next meeting for the committee is on Tuesday, September 6. That would give the bill 3 days, or the rest of the week, to pass the committee, get a vote after the third reading on the Assembly floor, then get concurrence for the amended version on the Senate floor before the end of business on the 9th. Keep in mind that the bill does not need to be signed by the Governor to become law, it only needs to pass both houses and not get vetoed by the Governor afterwards. If all of that happens, on January 1, 2006 the bill would become law.

Measuring a stadium's value

SI.com just released their baseball Fan Value Index, which attempts to quantify the experience at each of the thirty MLB ballparks based on prices, amenities, and "intangibles" such as neighborhood and atmosphere.

McAfee Coliseum landed right in the middle, at #15 between Yankee Stadium and U.S. Cellular Field. In giving the Coliseum a score of 40 out of 70 possible points, reviewer James Black hit the nail right on the head in one of his closing comments:

"Despite regularly producing playoff teams since the 1970s, the A's play in one of the majors' least interesting ballparks, while across the Bay the Giants' inconsistent play (at best) is rewarded with a veritable Taj Mahal."

Surprisingly, that very Taj Mahal across the bay placed 24th on the list, scoring a total of 37. The low scores came largely from inflated prices cited from Team Marketing Report's Fan Cost Index, with which I have to take some issue. It basically assumes that a family will buy the same food and souvenirs at every game, which is less likely to happen the more one goes. I can't comment on souvenirs since I don't buy them, but food prices are only slightly higher at SBC versus those at the Coliseum. A microbrew usually costs a quarter more in SF, while a hot dog is 25-50 cents more. SBC, through its pouring rights deal with Coke, has one pretty unique item not found in other ballparks: Coke vending machines. When the park opened in 2000, those 1.5 L bottles cost only $1. They've steadily gone up since then and are no longer a great deal at $3 (IIRC), but they more than did the job since they didn't have long lines and the sodas were always cold. It's an idea that should be considered for a new A's ballpark, since the overhead compared to using vendors is relatively low. No, I am not arguing for the return of the Automat, but for something as simple as a drink, there are obviously more efficient ways of selling it, and vending machines make sense.

Incidentally, the top-ranked venue this year was Miller Park, which like the Coliseum has lots of parking and plenty of walk-up tickets available. Limited public transit options knocked it down a bit, but the great tailgating experience and the amenities available in the new ballpark boosted its score. PNC Park placed second, Coors Field third, and Angels Stadium fourth (thanks to Arte Moreno's promise of reasonably-priced concessions and tickets).

Selig to visit San Jose

According to this report from the Merc, the Commonwealth Club's Silicon Valley chapter scored big in getting an appearance from none other than commish Bud Selig. Selig is scheduled to speak September 7 at the McEnery Convention Center, where he will speak on numerous topics including steroids and expansion. The most locally intriguing issues are, of course, relocation and territorial rights. This is probably the best opportunity for San Jose partisans to find out if Selig is willing to budge on his hardline stance regarding the Giants' rights to Santa Clara County. There is an issue of timing, since the Oakland ballpark plans were announced only weeks ago and Selig won't want to say or do anything to potentially jeopardize that initiative. It's likely that Selig could spend the day touring the Coliseum North site with Lew Wolff, perhaps even alternate sites like Fremont. If San Jose officials were able to get an hour or so to make an unofficial pitch and tour, it would be a major coup for their efforts.

I, for one, will make every effort to attend the event.

SB 4 passes Appropriations Committee

Yesterday, SB 4 passed easily in the State Assembly's Appropriations Committee, 13-4. The three Bay Area Assembly members on the committee (Mark Leno, Johan Klehs, Joe Nation) all voted yes. Now, it should be on to a third reading and a vote in the Assembly. Afterwards, the heavily-amended bill has to go back to the Senate for approval, and then finally to the Governor's desk. SB 4 will have to compete with dozens of other bills, many of which are higher profile. The journey through the Legislature must be completed by September 9, which marks the end of the session.

Again, should SB 4 pass, there are possibilities for raising tax-free financing for a new ballpark and surrounding infrastructure, without requiring a local vote to authorize funds. Because the bill itself has been weakened, it's only reasonable to expect that the I-Bank Board would be very careful about how it qualifies projects, since it will have the final say. If the Wolff plan proceeds with land acquisition and then construction, it's likely that either the JPA or Oakland would be asked to make a proposal to the I-Bank, even though the revenue streams used to pay off the stadium would be largely private.

CBS-5 Mayoral roundtable

CBS-5's Hank Plante hosted a Charlie Rose-style roundtable including the mayors of the three big Bay Area cities: Jerry Brown, Ron Gonzales, and Gavin Newsom. The discussion covered a multitude of issues including crime, the Bay Bridge, gay marriage, and homelessness.

Inevitably, Plante brought up the issue of competition among the three cities, and that meant the A's and San Jose's thinly veiled efforts to get the A's. True to form, Gonzales said little about the A's directly, and Brown repeated his position of "let's keep the A's here, but at what public cost?" Anyone expecting heated debate about the A's was sure to be disappointed. It's becoming apparent that Gonzales is merely keeping the idea of baseball in San Jose warm for the next San Jose mayor, while Brown used the roundtable as a lengthy politicking session, as shown by his almost complete disinterest in the subject matter.

Attendance watch, August edition

The recent surge in the standings helped boost the A's turnstile performance during the first week of the 12-game August homestand. As expected, attendance cooled somewhat with the weather and the arrival of the Baltimore Orioles and Kansas City Royals, but the average attendance for the homestand was still excellent, at 32,555 per game.

To date, that puts the A's 4% down from last year. This season's total attendance through 65 dates is 1,697,637. In 2004, it was 1,769,184. The good news is that the A's should surpass last season's pace (not total attendance) in the next series versus the Yankees. The following three opponents (Texas, Seattle, Minnesota) probably won't make much of a dent. At least there are a Mark Kotsay bobblehead night (rare to have bobblehead giveaways on weeknights) on September 6, and a Fireworks Night on September 23 versus the Rangers. The last series of the year is a four-game mid-week set against The O.C., and while the last two games should be well-attended by default, attendance at the first two games may depend on the A's relative playoff status. To beat last season's total attendance mark, the A's will have to draw around 31,500 a game for the rest of the season - not impossible, but a challenge because of the way the schedule is drawn up. If the A's are in wild card or division championship contention during the final week of the season, they should be able to beat it. They'll need 1,000 more than that per game to beat 2003's total.

Wolff needs someone on the inside + Property owners have their say

Two articles by the Trib's Paul Rosynsky today. First off is a report with quotes from numerous property owners who may be willing to relocate if the price is right, but also hate eminent domain with a passion. Next is an article detailing a request from Lew Wolff to the City of Oakland, asking for someone within City Hall to assist with the plan (land acquisition, zoning, planning). Oakland did have just the man for that job once upon a time, but Robert Bobb was never supported by Mayor Brown, and so he left to a place where his skills could be utilized: Washington, DC. Larry Reid, as much as he may be committed to this, will not get the job done alone. There needs to be someone on the inside who can navigate the political maze and broker the necessary deals to get everything in place. At my day job, we call this person a "champion." The champion is willing to do the leg work, the follow-ups on all related parties - someone who has considerable influence within but won't be distracted by other issues, as an elected official would. Will the city produce such an individual? We'll find out shortly.

The media has questions

The Chronicle has a new editorial that has the same tone as Thursday's Tribune op-ed. I imagine Wolff must be a pretty good poker player, though I imagine he's more likely to play hold-em, stud, or baseball than no-peekie. Then again, with so many Saturday evening games, perhaps he's a fan of night baseball.

Eric Lai of the East Bay Business Times has an excellent article on the impending land acquisition efforts. There are some mind-blowing numbers, including an estimate by the paper's analysts that the land in question could be worth up to $315 million. Or, at the below market rate of $20 per square foot, the land would cost $126 million. Keep in mind that the purchase of the land would not be a cost borne by the City of Oakland, but whatever the final figure may be, it's a substantial investment. The payoff potential is enormous though, as Wolff and his partners could net hundreds of millions if not billions if they built, say, 5,000 market rate condos on the site. The piece ends with a rather ominous note:

Wolff has set a one-year deadline for garnering the political and monetary support for his project. That assumes unrealistically quick cooperation from a wide range of government bureaucracies, critics say.

"Lew might have come up with something so big in order to see Oakland fail," said Zennie Abraham, a former Oakland mayoral adviser and sports business owner.

Having made his best effort, Wolff would then be free to negotiate moving the A's to a city such as Portland, Sacramento or Las Vegas, all of which are clamoring for a Major League Baseball franchise and willing to pony up more money than Oakland is.

Coliseum South = Plan B? + Transit struggles + As the baguette turns

The CoCo Times' Guy Ashley mentions an important nugget not previously reported from the 8/12's JPA meeting:

Though Wolff said the team is open to all possible alternative sites, the preferred one appears to involve a compact new A's stadium in the Coliseum's north parking lot, and a massive new parking facility on the south side of the Coliseum near Hegenberger Road.

One East Bay official at the center of the A's ballpark initiative said the site repeatedly comes up as the most logical Plan B for the stadium project.

"It's his fallback position," said Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid, who spoke with Wolff about the Coliseum scenario days before Wolff went public with the baseball team's grand Plan A to transform a tired swath of land along I-880 between 66th Avenue and High Street.

While it's not the major development plan proposed at the meeting, it's a reasonable fallback should acquisition of parcels within the preferred site prove difficult. However, it does pose issues involving financing. Limited acreage makes the investment potential at the Coliseum North/South lots far less. There's also a question of whether such an option, which places the ballpark on the north end and extra parking along Hegenberger, makes sense. The Raiders don't want garage parking. They want surface lots for their fans to tailgate. It makes more sense to put a ballpark on the Malibu lot and build other parking along Hegenberger, so that interference with the Raiders' interest is minimal. They'd also have a chance to further develop the Hegenberger land, which would be a short walk from the ballpark itself. Whatever Plan B actually is, it's good to know that at least there is a Plan B.

---

Another item of interest is the fallout from the federal transportation bill (Fremont Argus). While San Jose Congressman Mike Honda inserted language that will help the BART-to-San Jose project, other projects were hurt because they didn't receive federal matching funds that are desperately needed to complete them. The BART Warm Springs extension and the BART Oakland Airport People Mover are two local projects that received nothing. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission may have the ability to shift money around to get some of 10 projects on the list going, but they're going to need to be creative. If something doesn't happen to bridge the funding gaps for each of these projects, they could be delayed at least two to four years, or even indefinitely.

---

The final item today is a report from the Chronicle on the closure of the Parisian sourdough bakery in San Francisco. An institution for 149 years, Parisian was swallowed up by Interstate Brands (Twinkies, Wonder Bread) several years ago.

Interstate Brands, which filed for bankruptcy protection last year, is shutting down two San Francisco bakeries as part of a cost-cutting move, an effort "to right the ship,'' said Interstate Bakery spokesman Jason Booth. The second bakery, on Bryant Street near San Francisco's Potrero Hill neighborhood, made Wonder Bread, Twinkies and Ho-Ho snack cakes. It also closed Friday. Interstate said neither plant was profitable.

The point of all of this? Interstate is keeping their Oakland bakery open. In a previous post, I noted that this is the landmark Colombo bakery, which just so happens to take up several acres of the land Lew Wolff is trying to acquire. There are a couple of possibilities here. Since Interstate has two factories that they would have to liquidate, it may be possible for Councilman Larry Reid to ask Interstate to relocate their Colombo operations to San Francisco, if that's feasible. Of course, that's probably not an appealing notion to workers at the Colombo bakery. There's also the possibility that because Colombo is a healthy brand and may have some special strategic importance to Interstate, that they may be unwilling to sell the property. Everything has a price, but there are certainly valid arguments for making it either more or less difficult. Only when these parties are engaged will we know for certain. Add to that the fact that negotiating with every individual company or landowner is a unique set of circumstances, and you can start to appreciate the effort that will be needed to pull this deal off.

SB 4 amended again - more changes

Prior to a vote in the Appropriations committee, SB 4 was amended again. This time, there's a wholesale change in how the funding system works. The biggest change is the elimination of the California Public Performance Facilities Authority, the body that would have approved or rejected any stadium or venue projects that applied for funding through this new state-based process. Instead, now all approvals would go through the State Infrastructure Bank's board.

The impact is huge, in that the I-Bank's board is made up of much different characters than the Authority's would-be board. The Authority board would have been comprised of entertainment and sports industry veterans. The I-Bank's board is made up financial and policy wonks, who collectively may be less inclined to approve some of the more questionable projects than the Authority's board would have been. The net effect is that the bill's potential power in practice has been significantly reduced. In fact, the I-Bank's staff provided the following comment:

Conversely, staff at the Infrastructure Bank believe that this bill would not provide to the state any new tools from those currently available to a local government or joint powers authority seeking to finance these facilities.

Will the bill come up for a vote in the Assembly and then get signed by the Governor before the end of the short session? I'd say no, at least not in this rather neutered form.

Update (8/19): The bill was just placed in the Appropriations committee's suspense file, which means that it will be further studied because of its fiscal impact. Another vote in Appropriations is scheduled for Thursday, 8/25.

Trib Op-Ed

Todays' editorial from the Oakland Tribune shows optimism in the ballpark plan, but withholds judgment on it until more details come out. An important issue that is brought up in the piece is the High St/880 interchange. Will it have to be revamped to handle additional residential, commercial, and event-related traffic? Would the same have to happen for the 66th Ave overpass as well? One of the few good things about postgame traffic from the Coliseum is that the cars in the north lots have to exit via 66th Ave, while those in the south lots exit via Hegenberger Rd, splitting traffic. That wouldn't be the case with a new ballpark whose traffic would be largely centered around 66th. A new thoroughfare could be constructed to take northbound traffic to High St, but that traffic could end up running through a residential neighborhood, which isn't ideal.

There's also a larger philosophical question here: Does this mean Oakland is near the end of its image as a blue collar town? While it's possible that not all of the businesses that would be displaced would leave Oakland completely, the plan is a classic case of gentrification. Like many other cities with a long manufacturing and industrial heritage, Oakland has been struggling for several years with the idea of gentrification (and the economic benefits it brings) against maintaining its gritty image. Many of the food processing companies that once called Oakland home, such as Mother's Cookies and Fleischmann's Yeast, left long ago. Colombo Baking may leave as well. Some may bemoan this major change as the loss of Oakland's soul. Others may welcome it, saying it's a better fate than that suffered by Detroit or Cleveland. Considering the fact that yesterday, 12,000 people lined up outside the nearby Wal-Mart in East Oakland to apply for only 400 openings, perhaps progress isn't the such the bitter pill many make it out to be.

Coliseum North Photo Overview + Wolff development news

The ballpark site photo overview is now available. The file is slightly over 1 MB and is in PDF (Acrobat) form. A permanent link has been created in the sidebar as well. Here's a sample photo:



In tangentially related news, L.A.'s Staples Center (owned by Anschutz Entertainment Group) is getting $10 million in video and seating upgrades. Staples is only five years old, but AEG wants to preserve Staples Center's reputation as the most glamorous, feature-packed arena in the nation. AEG is also developing land near Staples, including the big 1,200-room hotel that it is building with Maritz, Wolff & Co. The hotel is scheduled for groundbreaking in the fall.

Response from BART

I received a response from Linton Johnson, Chief Spokesperson for BART (and former NBC-11 anchor/reporter). The answers he gave indicated how early in the process all of this ballpark and ballpark village talk is.

According to Johnson, the $70 million figure is based on "rough paper estimates" on how much it would cost to build a new station. A complete study would have to be undertaken for BART to be able to obtain firmer figures and a breakdown of costs. More interesting facts:

• The cost would depend largely on whether the station is on-line (used during all operating hours) or off-line (used during games only). So far, no stations on the current system operate on an off-line basis, but it was considered for some of the stations between Colma and SFO.
  
• The 10 car estimate is based only on operating a station on an off-line basis. An unknown higher number of cars would be needed if the station were to operate on-line/full time. The final number of cars needed would depend on a final study.
• The A's have not called BART yet to ask them to explore this further.
• The process of getting a BART station approved and built involves some of the typical studies such as an environmental impact report (EIR) and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
• About prioritizing such a project, Johnson said, "Money and politics will determine priority."

So the rough costs cited were very rough, and could inflate quite a bit when all is said and done. Another item from the drawing is the pedestrian footbridge that would have to be built from the station to the village, similar to the existing Coliseum BART bridge. The cost of such a bridge would have to be included. For reference, a similar bridge project being built between Petco Park and Harbor Drive/San Diego Convention Center just received $2.8 million in federal funds. Oh, infrastructure!

---

In other news, columnist Evan Weiner of the Bergen Record/NorthJersey.com details the trend of ballpark village developments occurring in MLB cities.

And in Sacramento...

The Legislature is back after their month-long recess. That means it's time to check on SB 4. According to the latest update from aroundthecapitol.com, SB 4 is scheduled to hit the Assembly Appropriations committee on Wednesday. This legislation could have an enormous impact on the final deal between the A's and Oakland/JPA, because of the tax-free financing that would be available, as well as the ability of groups to use that financing to fund all sorts of infrastructure - including transit improvements like a new BART station or off-ramps, pedestrian bridges, etc.

Meanwhile, in San Jose...

From the San Jose Business Journal: San Jose's Redevelopment Agency is continuing with its efforts to acquire the Diridon South properties. To do this they are going around the city's charter, which requires a public vote before any money is spent on a sports facility. They're able to do it by saying that the land could be developed any number of ways, a stadium only being one. While this is certainly true on the surface (previously published planning docs indicate the city's desire to developing housing on the site), most everyone around the new City Hall knows that it's definitely a stadium site they are trying to secure. The latest update:

The RDA is ordering up appraisals, and on Aug. 9, the City Council tentatively approved the sale of 9.22 acres on Julian Street to provide the agency with about $14 million to help pay for the land, which includes the old KNTV studios, a PG&E power substation and Stephen's Meat Products.

Ever the cheerleader for San Jose effort, Santa Clara County Assessor and Baseball San Jose board member Larry Stone got in a few digs at Oakland over the plan when he was interviewed by KTVU-2 on Friday. Regarding the Diridon South site:

The San Jose Redevelopment Agency should have land secured for a possible ballpark on the western edge of Downtown San Jose, near the Diridon train station, within the next 30 to 60 days -- when Wolff's Oakland proposal collapses, San Jose will be waiting, Stone said.

Pics of Coliseum North coming soon!

After today's game, I drove around the 90-acre site and took pictures of the various buildings in the area, the roads and railroad tracks. I'll put them into a Photo Overview soon enough. (And no, I was not accosted at any point.)

In the meantime, there's a new report from the CBS-5 (KPIX) with video of the area and feedback from local businesses.

The Price of BART

Paul Rosynsky's Tribune article on yesterday's announcement has a couple of eye-popping revelations regarding BART:

BART spokesman Linton Johnson said it is possible for such a station to be built, but estimated it could cost at least $70 million.

In addition, Johnson said, BART would have to buy at least 10 additional train cars to service the station and residential units and would ask Wolff and the team to pay for them. That cost could be as much as $40 million.

I'm flabbergasted. I figured the station might cost $50-60 million, so $70 million isn't out of line, but the cost of buying extra train cars really pushes the price up. $110 million for a station one mile north of the Coliseum station? That's enormous. This sets the stage for the BART issue to become a showstopper. It's up to Oakland officials to get really creative on financing this piece.

---

Elsewhere the Trib, Dave Newhouse's column trumpets the convergence of two catalytic events for the A's. Eric Gilmore of the Contra Costa Times also chimes in with his column, which expresses a fair amount of optimism. And to answer one of the financing questions:

Wolff said he hopes to use money from the redevelopment project to help fund the A's stadium. What he won't do is sell personal seat licenses, which contributed to the Raiders' debacle.

First Impressions

Disclaimer: I am not a professional architecture critic or architect, so these comments should be taken with several grains of salt.

Now that the curtain has been lifted on the A's plans, we can start to dissect them in earnest. I have to admit that I didn't get the site right at all, but I promise to make up for it by putting together a proper profile on what can now be called the "Coliseum North" site. Expect to see that early next week. I didn't get the site right at all because I had no idea the plan would be this expansive. By thinking small, I limited myself to only certain sites. Again, that's an indication of why Mr. Wolff is a developer and I'm just a blogger.

Looking at the first batch of renderings (available in large format alongside Glenn Dickey's story in the Chronicle), there are a couple of words that immediately come to mind: humble and quirky. Humble refers to the unassuming, streamlined profile the ballpark cuts with its exterior. Quirky comes from the various unique elements in the outfield.

Humble

To understand the visual effect, look at the grandstand façade. Instead of large, ubiquitous, monolithic brick walls, the grandstand is open air, with brick-covered columns to define it. Access ramps, which are not present in the rendering, tend to be open air as well and should follow the same design philosophy. Since the playing surface is sunken, the columns themselves probably rise only 40 feet. Compare that to SBC Park, whose façade rises at least 60 feet from street level. Some other observations:

• The two-deck design allows the design to be low-slung, eliminating the need for numerous concourse levels.
• Luxury suites are not present in the grandstand. They will be there at some point.
  
• Even the roof over the upper deck appears to be made out of either mesh or a translucent material, giving it less definition and giving the appearance that the roof is not contributing to the height of the grandstand. Whether a roof is even needed is questionable, since wind and rain aren't big problems in Oakland. At SBC Park the roof has purpose. Not so in Oakland.
• The light standards are almost wispy.
  
• The outfield buildings are of varying heights, all taller than the grandstand, which further lends to the idea that the ballpark is small. Even the entry plaza behind home plate doesn't announce itself except for six columns that jut out from the rest of the structure.
  

Quirky

Just a brief glance at the outfield in this rendering tells you that this ballpark is busy. There are so many different elements that it can be distracting. I imagine that once inside the ballpark, the effect will be more subdued since the elements will be filled with patrons and the focus will be on the on-field action. Let's take a look at these elements one-by-one:

• LF Corner Bullpen (yellow) - This is probably the home bullpen based on its size. It starts well down the left field line, continues past the foul pole, and ends at what is probably a combination retail/restaurant building, with standing room areas for fans to watch pitchers warm up. The idea originated in the design for Safeco Field in Seattle.
• LF Corner Building - While it certainly borrows heavily from Petco Park's integration of the Western Metal Supply building, it doesn't serve quite the same purpose. Besides the restaurant, there may be extended club facilities and the A's administration offices, both of which would have enviable views of the field. Atop the building would be a large party deck and extra seating, which could be used or not used depending on expected attendance or high demand.
• Bleacher Triangle (Left-Center) - This is definitely my favorite element of the design, and not just because I am a bleacher bum (Section 137). It definitely establishes a distinct neighborhood for the bleacher creatures in left. The triangle or "A" shape is playful. It's also divided into upper and lower sections. This may allow for the creation of a lower reserved section and an upper general admission section. The height of the first row may be only one-half the height of the same row in the Coliseum's bleachers.
• The Tower (Left-Center) - The most unique element is the introduction of either condos or a hotel (less novel, see Toronto) overlooking the field. Six levels of units, three abreast, comprise the tower, which rises over the triangle like a sentry. The piece de resistance is the roof deck, complete with seats overlooking the field and a pool with deck chairs. Condos would provide more upfront money to finance the ballpark, but they might yield less in tax revenue than a hotel.
  
• CF Building - Probably the most controversial part of the design, this building is adorned with several balconies and decks that hang over the field. Will they be in play? The idea isn't original, as it was built into Houston's Minute Maid Park in the form of "Crawford Boxes." In this incarnation, these look like party suites with decent sized seating decks attached. Above the two levels of party suites are more hotel rooms/condos. And yes, on the roof is another yet party deck, this time with a huge LED video board smack dab in the middle of it. It may sound like overkill on the party facilities, but it's actually smart. The facility will be flexible enough to hold gatherings of many different sizes. The decks could be split as needed, and there's potential for overflow seating as well. Lessons Wolff learned cutting his teeth in the hospitality industry can easily apply in this field as well. The southern end of the building (right-center) appears to hold a fountain, and a contemporary one at that.
• RF Grandstand - The outfield wall will be low, probably 3-4 feet at most. If this sounds familiar, it's because a similar approach has been used in sections of Dodger Stadium, Angels Stadium, and Fenway Park. Another element similar to Fenway will be the design of the right field corner, which angles out sharply past the pole before curving towards center. Another bullpen (yellow) will be in the corner, with opposing pitchers constantly surrounded by fans. In light of the Craig and Jennifer Bueno/Frank Francisco incident, this might not be the smartest thing to do, but if the intent is to intimidate the visiting team, this will go a long way towards that. The foul pole is a dead-on copy of Fenway's Pesky's Pole. Gary Sheffield will be retired by the time it's built, so he won't have anything to worry about. There's a third seating deck just below the lights, too.
• The Outfield - There's some question about the height of the batter's eye, but it's probably right, and if it isn't it could be modified pretty easily. Other than the right field corner, there are no odd angles, and none of it appears to be visual affectation, which is refreshing. The biggest concern is the dimensions of the field, which were not disclosed. Hopefully the VDC learned something from their visits to some of the newer National League parks: Don't build a bandbox. Cincinnati and Philadelphia are going to have problems acquiring top-level pitching because of the pitifully shallow dimensions designed into their new ballparks. If anything, the outfield should be deeper than neutral to offset the diminished foul territory (compared to the Coliseum). Atlanta has kept itself competitive in large part due to Turner Field's enormous outfield.

Overall, I'm mostly pleased with the design. It's borderline overbuilt due to amount of adornment in the outfield, but none of it is gimmicky and most of it serves an actual purpose. It should make for a nice backdrop, though it's unfortunate that the outfield elements will block the view of the Oakland hills over which many Coliseum fans still reminisce. The façade is open and minimalist, though it could do without the now cliché brick. The design is certain to change as different stakeholders provide input. As more details come out, I'll continue to provide reviews.

One more bit to chew on for the conspiracy theorists: There is nothing about this ballpark that is site-specific.

Media reports

The reports are starting to file in. Here is the first batch:

• KGO-7 report (new with video, 4:30 PM)
  
• KRON-4 report (with photos)
• CBS-5 (KPIX) report (with video)
• Contra Costa Times (with photo)
• SF Chronicle/Glenn Dickey (with large photos, expanded article including feedback from affected businesses - 10:30 PM)
• NBC-11 video

Also, a larger picture:


Now that it's bigger, it can clear up some confusion on my part.
The red-purple oval on the left is a large plaza with a fountain in the middle of it. Coliseum Way runs through the plaza and becomes a frontage road along 880.

• In the upper-right is what looks like a BART platform and supporting structures (stairs, escalators).
• It could either be a street or a pedestrian mall on the north end, leading from the BART platform west. A piazza of sorts is between the street/pedestrian mall and the red oval.
• The green building just outside the third base grandstand looks like a public building - perhaps a museum or community center.
  

Morning update

NBC-11's website front page has a slightly larger than thumbnail sketch of a ballpark plan:



Video is now available on the site.

There's also a new press release from the team:

"On behalf of the Oakland Athletics ownership group, I have proposed a concept and a site to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) and the City of Oakland that we believe has tremendous potential for the development of a baseball-only facility for the A's in Oakland. It is our hope to create more than just a ballpark, but one of the next major urban centers in the Bay Area that will greatly add to the economic base and the community image of the city we have called home for the last 38 years.

"A visionary leadership from all parties associated with this project who believe the A's are a community asset is required to help us reach our objective in creating one of the most exciting venues in all of sports, one that will have a positive and lasting impact on the City of Oakland for years to come.

"Our ownership group is willing to incur the vast majority of costs associated with this project; however, to create the major urban development we envision is virtually impossible without some sort of public and governmental support. If public and private forces can be channeled to see this project to fruition, it is our belief the economic benefits to the City of Oakland will far outweigh the public assistance sought.

"We look forward to closely working with the JPA and the City of Oakland in a diligent and expedient manner to further examine the feasibility of this proposal."

Some observations:

• The site appears to be much more expansive than just the Drive-In/Swap Meet.
• The ballpark itself is situated just north of 66th Ave, on the southeast section of the site.
• The field is oriented northeast, similar to the current Coliseum, with the outfield running near the Union Pacific/Amtrak railroad tracks.
• Parking is on the other side of the tracks, with a series of bridges (pedestrian only?) providing access over the tracks.
• High-rise structures (probably the condos) are located in left and left-center.
• Small retail buildings line 66th Ave.
• Either a shopping center or big-box retailers have been placed to the west, along Coliseum Way.
• The street grid is completely changed north of 66th Ave.
• What looks to be a new street runs east-west through the complex. It may be an extension of the existing Seminary Ave., which currently ends at San Leandro St. That would make sense, because it would provide a direct route from I-580.
  

CoCo Times: A preview of the Friday meeting

More details are leaking out about the nature of the presentation that Wolff will give to the JPA tomorrow.

The project would reportedly involve up to 90 acres of industrial land between 66th Avenue and High Street, and will be pitched as one requiring no up-front investment of public funds from a community still reeling from sour deals with professional sports teams, including the disastrous 1995 pact that returned the Raiders to Oakland.

and...

These officials say they have not been told about project costs or other specifics related to Wolff's plan, including the exact site eyed for a ballpark. One official said it is assumed the project would include the former drive-in property, because it consists of about 20 acres of open land and is only blocks down Coliseum Way from the existing stadium.

It'll be interesting to see how expansive the plan really is. If it ends up being 90 acres, then it would come all the way down from the Drive-In/Swap Meet to 66th Ave. The bigger the size of the project, the greater the possibilities. There's certainly an opportunity for the creation of an "Athletics Village" or "A's Town" (someone else has already copyrighted the term "Athletics Nation") with the ballpark as the anchor for a large swath of development. Could it cause an influx of A's fans moving into the area, with residents eating, sleeping, and living baseball all year long? Statues of Billy Beane, Sandy Alderson, Wally Haas, Dave Stewart, and Rickey Henderson lining the streets? A Ricky's location just outside the ballpark? Bruce Bochte running a marine educational center/museum down the street? MC Hammer preaching at a church inside the village? Well, maybe not. It certainly would be a bold step, and if successful, would go a long way towards countering that California and Bay Area fans are fairweather or bandwagonesque.

It's good for A's fans to dream and hope about such things, but those hopes should be tempered with the fact that big urban renewal projects often have to get scaled back for any number of reasons: investor willingness, feasibility, government cooperation.

Trib: Details, please

In an editorial, the Trib implores Wolff to publicize the ballpark plans and stop teasing everyone with little details:

If Wolff has something specific in mind, this would be a good time to throw out the old trial balloon. The A's are the hottest team in baseball right now and could be in first place by this weekend after dwelling near the cellar a good part of the early season. Fans are streaming to the stadium, bringing with them converts from the other side of the Bay who could be hooked for good by a combination of consistent winning ball and the promise of a cozy ballpark.

While putting out information while the team is winning is no guarantee of widespread approval, it can't hurt. It's hard to conceive of a situation that's better suited, especially with the Giants' current plight.

Ratto: The A's can do better

The Chron's Ray Ratto weighs in with his opinion of the latest ballpark site:

Anyway, when you get right down to it, the A's aren't being held down by their ballpark much at all. Fact is (and who doesn't enjoy a good fact now and then?), they're probably better off staying where they are than sinking nine figures into a site that makes sense only to the editors of Redeveloped Flea Market Quarterly.

and...

Thus, the idea behind putting the ballpark further away from a BART stop, between two freeway off-ramps, and with a lovely view of San Leandro Boulevard seems odd, and bordering on the downright misguided.

Once Friday's presentation is made and the subsequent press conference is held, it should get the public debate going. Some questions to consider:

• Are the existing owners of the targeted properties willing to play ball (read: sell and relocate)?
• If not, what measures will the JPA/City of Oakland explore to make this get done (read: eminent domain)?
• What options are available to bridge the 1.2 mile gap between the Drive-In/Swap Meet and the Coliseum BART station? Shuttles? Trolleys? Another BART station?
  
• Why would the JPA be involved if the site under consideration is not under JPA control?
• There are large trucking/warehousing companies along Coliseum Way. How would they react to a mixed-use development next door, especially one that could significantly alter the existing street grid?
• How are the existing train tracks going to be negotiated? Pedestrian or vehicle bridges? Gates at crossings?
  
• Is this the best site? The easiest to acquire? The best compromise among all factors? Are other sites under consideration?
  

Matier and Ross: The Old Swap Meet

The latest tidbit from Matier and Ross concerns the old Coliseum Drive-in/Swap Meet lot just north of the Coliseum:

A birdie tells us that Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff does have his eyes on a location he'd like to explore for a new ballpark -- and no, it's not the waterfront -- it's the privately owned site of the Coliseum Flea Market at 66th and High streets.

Wolff is expected to go public with his ballpark plan during an appearance before the Oakland-Alameda Joint Powers Authority on Friday.

Coincidentally, I drove right by the Swap Meet yesterday to check out the site. The old screens and projection building are still there, though the Drive-In itself is no longer operational. The Swap Meet is open daily. I've linked a satellite photo if you're interested.

Some observations:

• It's 1 mile from the Coliseum BART station, and everything between it and BART is industrial. That's a pretty long distance. Would Wolff ask for another BART station to be built there? There's a $50 million price tag associated with a new station (Figure obtained from estimates for the Irvington station, part of the Warm Springs Extension). The best option may be to extend the Airport BART People Mover an extra two miles to the ballpark site.
  
• It's flanked by a huge warehouse that I don't think is getting used right now, an 5-acre overflow parking lot, and a PG&E plant/substation. An EBMUD maintenance yard and storage facility are across the freeway.
• The Swap Meet lot is owned by Syufy (Century Theatres to the rest of us).
• Coliseum Way would need regrading because of the now non-functional railroad tracks that repeatedly criss-cross it (and rip a car's suspension to pieces, btw).
• The area is zoned M-40/Heavy Industrial and would need to change to accommodate housing, retail, etc.
• A slough runs through the area, between the Drive-In and 880.
  

To make it worthwhile, Wolff would have to acquire everything between the BART tracks (San Leandro St) and 880, from the southern slough north to 50th Ave. That's about 35-40 acres, not including the PG&E lot. The combined property would be enough to build the ballpark, parking, and the mixed residential/retail development required for the area.

Is this a good idea? The distance from BART is a concern, and I don't see Oakland and Alameda County diverting some of the downtown/JLS transportation project money just to build a BART station only a mile away from an existing station. A shuttle could help, but not having BART immediately nearby is a significant issue. If you took BART to and from last night's game as I did, you know what I'm talking about.

Beyond that BART issue, it seems to fit Wolff's requirements. It's highly visible from the Nimitz (880), so he should be able to attract big-name retailers. The area would be a blank slate, so it could be developed however the developers saw fit, though for at least few years, it would be on an island compared to its surroundings. There are only a handful of property owners in the area, so Wolff could deal with them directly.

I've already started to see the comparisons to China Basin. It's unrealistic to expect development in East Oakland to flourish the way China Basin did. China Basin was a case of extremely good timing. SF politicos had been working on development plans for China Basin for decades, including two separate ballpark proposals (4th & Townsend was the first). Pac Bell Park broke ground just after the dot-com boom hit, and since the area was one of the last parts of the city not touched by new development, it became hot overnight, especially with the influx of young professionals. Soon lofts started showing up on Potero Hill, UCSF announced their new China Basin campus, and the South Beach neighborhood fully took shape. The confluence of high-stakes speculation and enormous economic growth is not looming in the same manner for East Oakland. If Wolff and his partners choose to invest in East Oakland, more power to them.

PSL's: A Cautionary Tale

Not to beat a dead horse regarding seat licenses, but a new article from the Trib shows that there continues to be much that can be learned from the Raiders' PSL woes. The Giants' charter seat program, while successful, does not lack nuggets of wisdom either. The main lesson is, "Provide value above and beyond a seat." There is a wide ranging array of perks available for potential seat license investors at a new ballpark. Some ideas that may or may not prove effective as incentives:

1. Expanded preferred ticket-buying opportunities, especially for high-demand games (Giants/Red Sox/Yankees).
2. Greater access to players/staff/management through open houses, fan forums, or planned social events.
3. Access/admission to club facilities several hours before/after games. May also include post-7th inning alcohol sales.
   
4. Discounts on renting ballpark facilities (clubs, meeting rooms, tours).
5. Food, beverage, and parking vouchers for low-demand games (er, Tampa Bay/Kansas City).
6. Liberal renewal terms (dropping out for one year in season ticket purchases does not result in significant drop in preferred seating location - may be subject to demand).
7. Extra swag available on promotional giveaway days.
   

Putting a winning team obviously has an effect on season ticket/seat license sales as well, but as seen in the Raiders' 2001-02 season, winning offers few attendance guarantees. Wolff has said the area is not keen on seat licenses, but I'm still skeptical on the idea that they won't be offered.