Let's not panic, people

All of the posts at Athletics Nation and other boards reek of overreaction. There's a lot of information going around, and it's important to keep everything in perspective.

First, the only ticket prices that have been posted and verified are those for which season tickets will be sold. This is largely a marketing decision that aims at the parts of the Coliseum that will have the most consistent service. The problem with the previous situation is that for games where you could expect 25,000 or less, it was difficult to determine the proper staffing levels. In fact, it was common on Monday and Tuesday nights to see no concesssion stands open on the View concourse and the outer reaches of the Plaza concourse. That may not mean much to fans who are, well, used to the situation, but it makes for a pretty time-consuming affair just to get a hot dog if you were unfortunate enough to sit in the affected sections. Since those concession stands will only be open for high-attendance games, it makes sense to only sell season tickets for sections whose level of service will be relatively consistent and homogenous regardless of the game date, time, or attendance scenario. Season ticket holders should feel that they are getting some kind of value-added aspect to their commitment, and this pricing scheme moves things in that direction. Remember that Wolff is a hotelier and fully understands basic and advanced concepts of customer service. There's plenty to criticize in the handling of this matter, but I'll get to that later.

Second, the A's needed to establish greater price differentiation among their tickets. The pre-2006 pricing structure was probably the simplest in the major leagues. That made it easy for walk-up fans, but it made it difficult for the A's to sell value among the pricing tiers. Even low-revenue teams like Kansas City and Minnesota had more sophisticated pricing structures than Oakland, where the entire upper deck is a single price. The new pricing structure is much more graduated than in years past. The obvious holes in the structure are at the $12, $16, and $24 levels (based on single game prices). $12 or $16 can be filled by the View level seats. Before you start screaming in a comments post, keep in mind that similar seats at the Metrodome cost $18. At Kauffman Stadium they're $12, and across the bay at China Basin they're $19 or $24 depending on whether the games are on weekdays or weekends. View level seats are usually subject to heavy discounting, and that probably won't change if the View level seats are sold. We can probably say goodbye to the Double Play Wednesday promotion, since it may have hurt the A's seasonal ticket revenue in the long run. Think more along the lines of more frequent newspaper family packs or half-price nights for students (wishful thinking? I'm not a student).

The argument above assumes that the View level seats are sold, which is not a given. The A's are in a tough position regarding the View level. There's no way to cut corners on service without completely eliminating concessions and security to parts of the View level. The split-level concourse design prevents the A's from easily closing off sections of seats while providing service to those that are open, as the Dodgers do with the Pavilion bleachers in their outfield. The A's could go with a two or three-tiered pricing scheme with the View level, say $16, $12, and $8 or $6, but they'd have to keep the facilities open on the upper concourse to justify the price hike along the infield.

There is an interesting potential benefit to this. Since the big-ticket games (Giants, Yankees, BoSox, fireworks) usually have high advance sales, pushing season ticket holders (A's fans) to the lower decks relegates more of the opposing team's fans to the View level.

Whatever happens with the View level, the A's have a few months and much initial feedback upon which they can put together a viable single-game pricing strategy. In doing that, they can do the one thing that would help clear up a lot of the confusion: FIX THE WEBSITE! It looks like they just pasted the new table of prices without updating the seating map or the interactive pricing map guide. Fans looked at the site and saw two different prices for seats along with no explanation for the missing View level in the table. Bad information begets FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Get the graphics fixed and post a message about the View level that explains it once and for all, and you'll put the nervous nellies' minds at ease. The sooner it gets done, the better. I have the feeling that the calls and e-mails from early Monday afternoon elicited responses from the ticket sales staff that weren't properly prepared or informed. By the time I called just before 5 p.m. on Monday, it sounded like the ship was in order. Still, there's still a good amount of confusion (and perhaps misconceptions) among some of the most faithful fans, so there should be some sort of release that addresses their concerns.

Upper deck not for sale in 2006?

Update: The A's ticket office has told me that there are no plans to sell any season tickets in the View level, because they say it is difficult to provide the same level of service there as they do in the lower two levels. No decision has been made on whether single-game seats will be sold in the View level. It's possible they might open the View level for select games (Yankees, Giants, fireworks). They might leave it open all season as the "walk up deck." They might leave it closed for the entire season. I can say that as a season ticket fence-sitter, the likelihood of me going for season tickets has increased. It appears that this move is meant partly to motivate fans like me. We'll find out if they get people like me in enough numbers to counter any backlash they may get in the coming months.

Posters on Athletics Nation are reporting that the View level (euphemism for upper deck) will not be sold next season. I've confirmed that as of now, this only affects season ticket sales. There is no set policy with regard to regular single-game tickets, but if the A's choose not to sell the View level at all, there are serious ramifications:

• The upper deck held around 12,000. That should knock capacity down to 34-35,000
  
• No more View level promotions like "BART Double Play Wednesdays" or "Pepsi can weeknights"
• No need to staff the upper-upper concourse behind sections 310-325.
• Far fewer walkup seats for every date
  

Consider this a trial balloon for Lew Wolff's ballpark plan. If the ticket supply can be constrained enough to force fans to buy season tickets, then a good business model will be in place for the new ballpark with the demand far less elastic than before. There are definite risks with this new pricing plan. Depending on what promotions are planned for 2006, there will be no tickets priced below $10, and the only tickets at $10 will be the bleachers and plaza bleachers.

There is the risk of backlash. Fans may not respond well to the disappearance of cheap walkup seats in the View level. The walkup situation has become something of an institution, and if A's marketing doesn't properly inform fans of this change, they may find fans either confused by the new ticket offerings or even turned away for certain games. The task for the A's is to handle this with as much diplomacy as possible. There are plenty of fans that think the seats in sections 315-320 are perfectly fine (including me). How do the A's convince them that those seats aren't good?

The upshot of all of this is to find out if the season ticket base can expand. If it does, the A's will have a good subscription base from which they can start marketing a new ballpark. If not, it becomes a reason to leave Oakland, since the lack of season ticket sales will "prove" that Oakland is not a ripe market. It's not fair to Oakland, since the Coliseum is not the same as a new ballpark, but Wolff needs some data upon which he can create a business case for a new ballpark, and that makes us guinea pigs.

Diridon South site cost = $80-100 million

A new report in the San Jose Business Journal estimates that the cost to acquire the 14-acre, 12-parcel site could reach the $80-100 million range, based on a value of $125-130 per square foot. And for the first time, at least one property owner has expressed reluctance to sell his property.

The city has budgeted $60.5 million to acquire the land, which makes it well short of $70.8 million in pure real estate value and doesn't include relocation costs for the affected businesses. The businesses include:

• A PG&E substation (northwest corner next to the railroad tracks)
  
• A SBC work center and storage facility
• One residence
  
• A small bar at the corner of W. San Fernando and S. Montgomery
• A welding supply company south of the bar
• An imports wholesaler/retailer at the Autumn/Montgomery "fork"
• A storage facility for Amtrak/Caltrain (northeast corner of the site)
  

The currently vacant parcels include the former Stephens Meat plant and the former KNTV (NBC-11) studio. The site is in green in the picture below:



All of the parcels are important, and it is unlikely that ballpark could be situated on the site without acquiring every parcel. It might be doable without the PG&E substation, but that would require reconfiguring the street grid by moving Autumn St to the east and acquiring additional land to compensate. Since the plan would eliminate Montgomery Street, Autumn Street would have to be reconfigured as a two-way thoroughfare. That reconfiguration is already in the Diridon/Arena General Plan because of a need to connect the area with the development occurring north of the Arena. That change could take up as much as 1/3 acre from the ballpark site.

Fortunately for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, there's no talk of eminent domain, which proved to be an extremely divisive issue when the Arena (now HP Pavilion) was built. The parcels will be bought at market rate or at some negotiable rate, which should prevent any lengthy legal trouble. There would only be a problem if one of the owners refused to sell.

One way for the city to bridge that $10-20 million gap is to figure out a way for PG&E to reconfigure the substation. I don't have any knowledge of how this can be done, but when looking just at space, it would make sense to move the substation to the southwest corner of the site and realign it to run parallel with the railroad tracks. That should minimize the impact on available ballpark area. There would undoubtedly be safety and clearance/setback regulations that would have to be addressed, but it would be a way to give PG&E nearly 2 acres of land at the site without forcing them to move power lines. By doing this, the city would save money since it wouldn't have to purchase land from PG&E, only exchange it. That could cut some $5-10 million off the final price tag, depending on how much it costs to move the existing equipment. The $25,000 the city approved last week for PG&E is being used to study this option.

As for SBC/AT&T, they're sitting on some valuable land there, though I'm pretty sure the facility is strictly a work center with no line services coming from it. It has a small maintenance garage and building for storage, but the local central office is downtown on Market and San Fernando, not at this site. The big issue there is vehicle parking, which is scarce downtown. My guess is that in selling the land, SBC will try to work in some deal for parking in the downtown area.

If I were a real estate speculator, I'd look into buying land east of Autumn St next to the ballpark site. Why? Someone could build some nice, expensive condos there, complete with views into the ballpark a la Wrigley Field.

One thing is fairly certain: Diridon South is the most feasible, best-situated ballpark site in San Jose. All others have either been acquired for other development (Del Monte, Coleman Ave) or have infrastructure issues (Spartan/Muni, Reed & Graham).

San Jose's Chicken-and-Egg Problem

The Merc's Barry Witt describes the problem facing San Jose: How exactly does it go about attracting the A's when the team hasn't wavered in it's position that it's not looking in San Jose? Witt lays out two options:

• San Jose puts out a speculative ballpark plan based on the idea that a "Yes" vote will prove appealing to the A's - The egg.
  
• San Jose waits for the all efforts in Oakland to be exhausted, which will force the A's to look south, preferably to San Jose - The chicken.

There are obvious problems with both strategies. No ballpark has been built on a speculative basis since the Florida Suncoast Dome in St. Petersburg, which waited eight years until it finally became the home of a MLB franchise. The first option above does not call for a ballpark to be built, only a plan. With today's skyrocketing costs, no public entity could actually build a new ballpark without it team; it would be tantamount to political suicide. Still, putting together a plan isn't too costly, and since San Jose has a fallback plan with the site land, the risk isn't too high. If approved, the next plan could set the bar high for any competing cities and give San Jose a leg up on them - territorial rights not withstanding.

The second strategy is the least risky, since it delays any action until it is abundantly clear that the A's have no future in Oakland. However, it puts San Jose on equal footing with other cities should the A's express interest in leaving, which would turn the pursuit of the A's into a bidding war. It is important to note that the A's have expressed the idea that if efforts in Oakland run their course without a suitable solution, they will first turn to greater Alameda County, which would presumably put Fremont in an enviable position. Fremont's strategy would no doubt be to position itself as the gateway to Silicon Valley's corporate customer base, while remaining beyond the reach of the Giants' territorial rights. Fremont may also have a large amount of land on which a ballpark could be built, though no site is without its issues (Warm Springs is still mostly owned by NUMMI, and Pacific Commons is not near BART). Portland, Las Vegas, and perhaps Sacramento could also get into the mix. Each of the three have distinct advantages and disadvantages.

The City Council will vote on Tuesday to approve the purchase of the Stephens Meat plant and a feasibility study to be undertaken by leading sports architecture firm HOK Sport + Venue + Event. HOK is no stranger to this type of study, since it did the same for Oakland in 2001, to no avail.

Radio news

Reports from both the Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times indicate that no decisions on the A's broadcast team will be made until after Thanksgiving. Negotiations will start on a new contract for long-time broadcaster Ken Korach, who would presumably fill the late Bill King's #1 spot. I remember King also holding a "Director of Broadcasting" title at one time, and I wonder if Korach will be gunning for that as well (I need to check a recent media guide). Hank Greenwald is officially re-retired, and he may help his son Doug move from the Fresno Grizzlies' booth to Oakland. Other local notable candidates include Steve Bitker (KCBS and part-time radio with the A's), Ted Robinson (Stanford football, recently of the Mets and Giants) and Roxy Bernstein (Cal sports, Florida Marlins). A decision regarding the makeup of the TV booth should be made in the same timeframe.

House eminent domain bill passes

In a rebuke of this past June's Supreme Court decision ruling eminent domain for private entities legal, the House just passed a bill (H.R. 4128) that would deal out severe penalties to states and municipalities that would choose to use eminent domain in that highly controversial fashion.

The bill passed with astounding 376-38 tally, which meant that it received significant bipartisan support. The big penalty here is that the federal government would be able to withhold economic development funds for two years from local and state governments that used eminent domain for private projects. There are limitations in the law: private property owners have up to seven years after their property was seized or condemned to lodge a complaint, and the law will not apply to seizure or condemnation completed or in progress prior to the enactment of the law. If the constitutionality of the law becomes a question, it'll be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court upholds its previous decision or not. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was not the swing vote in the Kelo vs. City of New London case, so appointing a conservative successor wouldn't make a difference. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a bit of a surprise, was the swing vote in favor of the city and its developer partners, though given the chance to rule based on a broader law than a single case, there's a good chance he'd swing the other way.

Among the projects that in all likelihood won't be affected: the new Washington Nationals ballpark along the Anacostia River in D.C., and the new Arlington, TX football stadium being built for the Cowboys. For a new project like an A's ballpark, eminent domain would not be an option - at least not without severe consequences.

The bill is bound for the Senate, where it will probably pass. President Bush will probably sign it as well, though he actually supported eminent domain to seize property that eventually was used to build The Ballpark in Arlington.

Sometimes it pays to read...

Surprisingly, there is a blurb in the terms of the agreement between the Raiders and Oakland/Alameda County that has something to do with the A's. The Trib posted a three-page excerpt alongside their story. Here's the text (verbatim):

2g. Subject to the Authority reaching a mutually agreeable agreement with the Oakland Athletics, the Raiders may sell and retain all revenues from specified fixed advertising inventory in the Stadium on a year-round basis. The parties acknowledge that the Authority has made a good faith representation that the Athletics are agreeable to such an arrangement and the Authority will use its best efforts to finalize such an agreement with the Athletics. Additionally, Raiders shall be permitted to sell and retain all revenues from temporary advertising (banners) during football games provided that sponsors do not conflict with current Athletics exclusivity arrangements. The Raiders do not share any advertising revenue received by the EBEs.

In short, the A's won't be receiving revenue from much of, if not most of, the advertising in the Coliseum. From the looks of things, the only revenue they'll get is from the baseball-specific signage: the rotating board behind the plate, tarp covers, dugouts, and the outfield fence. The Coliseum has no dazzling ribbon board on the plaza level facade, and the signage panels next to the scoreboard are smaller than those at other parks. Why would the A's agree to this deal? There are a few possibilities:

• The revenue the A's realized was fairly inconsequential, and to help the public entities out (and to curry favor with them as well for a future ballpark), they decided to forego the revenue.
• The A's want to be able to point to the limited advertising revenue as another one of the Coliseum's "deficiencies."
• Tha A's want to limit revenue, which could mean a lower payment into the revenue sharing structure and higher revenue sharing receipt.
  
• The A's were simply being magnanimous.
  

Since there are no charity cases in these kinds of deals, I think we can dismiss #4 out of hand. #3 is unlikely because the amount probably is inconsequential. So the truth probably lies in both #1 and #2, though there may be other motives at work. In the end, whatever money they don't get can't be blamed on the A's not signing Paul Konerko or Brian Giles. However, it does look like the deal greases the skids for a clean Raiders' departure in 2010. Imagine that scenario: It's 2011, and there are no tenants at the Oakland Coliseum. The thought gives me shivers.

---

Update (11/3, 11:03 AM): A little historical context is in order. A three-year-old article from the East Bay Business Times covers a lawsuit brought by the Raiders (of course) against the A's for allegedly withholding advertising revenue. Though I haven't seen any news items related to the suit after it was filed, it appears that the A's giving the Raiders the ad money may settle the matter. The baseline revenue the A's had received was $3.9 million per year, with the Raiders and A's splitting money above that amount. It's definitely nothing to sneeze at, but it's also not enough for the A's to score a big-time righty slugger, either.

Raiders kill PSL's - The lessons learned

The Raiders have officially declared their ill-conceived PSL system dead. Unfortunately for Raider fans, they've had to endure 10 years of high prices, walk-up fans that can get seats just as good as the PSL holders without paying for PSL's, and television blackouts that result from poor ticket sales. Under the new arrangement, the Raiders will take over all ticket sales and marketing operations from the Oakland Football Marketing Association, which will now take its rightful place alongside such flops as the Titanic and the Ford Edsel.

This doesn't mean the concept of the seat license is dead. While Lew Wolff has acknowledged the lack of popularity for the maligned PSL, it's still hard to imagine a new stadium being built these days without some kind of sale. Advanced PSL sales can account for roughly 10% of total financing, which is no small number. Combine that with naming rights and other marketing deals, and the upfront share can easily reach $100 million without an owner having to spend a single cent out of pocket. The Cardinals have more than sold out their seat licenses for next year's edition of Busch Stadium, and the Yankees will likely do the same with the new Yankee Stadium. Maybe Wolff can fund the project without having to resort to selling seat licenses, but I'm skeptical.

The real lessons to be learned from the Raiders/OFMA debacle are:

• Make sure the demand is there.
  
• Have the subscriptions be lifetime subscriptions, not renewable ones.
• Instead, lock in the ticket prices associated with a seat license for a set number of years, then let the consumer decide if he/she wants to renew and lock in price controls again.
• Make sure the licenses are transferable via sales or bequest.

As painful as this ordeal was for the taxpayers of Alameda County, other cities and teams learned much from the Raiders' cautionary tale, and made sure that their efforts didn't repeat the same mistakes as those committed in Oakland.

---

Another note - I have reluctantly added the "word verification" feature to comments in order to combat the spam-bots that occasionally make comments on the posts. Not a big fan of it, but sometimes it's necessary.

San Jose site acquisition continues

Update (10:50 PM): San Jose City Council is expected to vote on the acquisition next Tuesday (November 8).

The City of San Jose is set to buy a key property on the proposed Diridon South ballpark site. The property in question is the former Stephen's Meat Products factory, which is distinctive for its "dancing pig" neon sign that greets drivers going south on Montgomery Street. The 1 acre site could cost up to $5.7 million.

Unlike what's happening in DC, the properties at Diridon South are expected to sell for actual market value through negotiations, meaning eminent domain isn't expected to be used. That should also ensure that there are no lengthy legal battles over the value of the land. That issue has ensnared the DC acquisition process enough to cause some waffling over the plan, even putting the projected timeline in jeopardy.

The downside is that the total cost of the land will be high - somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 million. So far, the money has come from the sale of other properties, notably the Brandenburg/North San Pedro site, upon which new residential towers will be built.

Stadium foes such as Kathy Chavez-Napoli have criticized the acquisition because they believe that it violates the city's own laws which dictate that no money can be spent on the building of a sports facility without a vote. The city's redevelopment arm (SJRA) may have an out because the land is being acquired with no specific purpose yet. It could be used for housing (per the Diridon/Arena planning document), a ballpark, or other commercial uses. The city's legal counsel has signed off on the legality of the acquisitions, though it does appear pretty clear what the greater purpose is. Whatever your take is on the subject, San Jose is well on their way to acquiring the site prior to a November 2006 ballot measure.

The leading question is - how is San Jose going to arrange its proposal? Will it offer to sell the land to a developer who can then build the ballpark? Or will it keep the land and arrange a long-term lease for the ballpark developer (the Giants/China Basin deal)? And what of surrounding parcels, some of which are also ripe for development of anything from parking structures to office towers to mixed-use residential development, such as a ballpark village?

A's radio up in the air

The Chron's radio reporter, Steve Kroner, wrote in Friday's edition about the many issues that the A's face in their broadcasting future. Not only does A's VP Ken Pries have the impossible task of filling the seat of the late, irreplaceable Bill King, but he also has to to broker a deal to get the A's on some kind of flagship station (AM-preferred) prior to the start of the 2006 season. Among the other open issues:

• Who will be the A's television play-by-play guy(s)?
• Will Hank Greenwald return? If so, how diminished will his schedule be?
• What will happen to fill-in radio play-by-play man Steve Bitker?
  

Based on various media reports, there are a few quality "free agent" broadcasters out there, including Ted Robinson (most recently of the Mets) and John Rooney (White Sox). Rooney would be my choice just because of his smooth baritone, but Robinson is perfectly competent - he's even worked for the A's in the past. Another possibility is Doug Greenwald, Hank's son, who has spent the last couple of years broadcasting for the Giants' Fresno (AAA) team. Greenwald has worked for nearly every California minor league team, and he at least deserves a shot at the gig. He previously auditioned for the open Giants radio position that eventually went to Dave Flemming, another young upstart.

Not to be lost in all of this is the news that after initial discussions, neither KQKE-960 nor KNEW-910 will broadcast the A's next season. That eliminates two more candidates from the already short list of potential radio homes for the A's. November is usually negotiation time for such matters, so we should hear more then.

---

Following up on initial reports in early October, the Bay Area Radio Digest confirmed that Cumulus Media is buying Susquehanna's radio properties, which include KNBR-680 and 1050.

---

Thanks Rob for the heads-up on the A's radio article.

CoCo Times: The nascent bidding war

The headline may be a bit too sensationalistic, but we may find that in a year it's right on target. The Contra Costa Times editorial page acknowledged the interest by Fremont and San Jose, even Sacramento and Las Vegas. Wolff's Oakland plan has both merit and challenges. Should Opening Day 2006 pass with little progress on the Oakland front, there's a good chance that multiple suitors will emerge with formal proposals, perhaps including cities in Alameda County that have been silent so far. Portland, OR remains a possibility just because the financial plan there remained in place even after they lost out in the Expos bidding war.

Exit car dealerships, enter... ballpark?

Update (10/26, 3:05 PM): Today I pitched the idea to Ignacio De La Fuente and Nancy Nadel. Councilwoman Nadel, in whose district the site resides, has been receptive so far. She's passing the idea along to Redevelopment. We'll see what happens from there.

---

According to an article in Sunday's Trib, some of the dealerships on Broadway Auto Row have expressed interest in relocating to a new "auto mall" concept at the old Oakland Army Base. Reasons given are the location's proximity and visibility from I-880, the fact that it's a little closer to San Francisco, and lower land costs/leases.

There are already plans to build various types of housing in the area based on available zoning and planning resources, but even with those plans, there exists at least one site where a ballpark could be built. The site is at the intersection of 27th Street and Broadway. It's roughly the shape of a triangle, and is just about the perfect site to shoehorn a ballpark in. Broadway Ford, a used car lot, and some other auto-related businesses currently occupy the area. I counted 2-3 houses and small apartment buildings as well.

These residents and businesses would obviously have to be relocated, and other land in the area would have to be acquired to fulfill Wolff's concept of surrounding development paying for the ballpark costs, but the site has several advantages, including its ideal downtown/uptown location and access to BART. There would also be neat views of the Oakland skyline and Lake Merritt (presumably from the upper deck). It even has a slight downward slope that's conducive to building a ballpark. Keep in mind that the idea of a building a ballpark on the site isn't mentioned in the article, but if Wolff's looking for an appropriate site, this one may just work.

What would it look like? Compare the image above - the land as it currently exists - with the image below, which has a conceptual design on it. (Please note that the images were created with the wonderful Google Earth application.)

That's Lake Merritt and Adams Point in the upper left hand corner. The nearest BART station is the 19th Street Station, about 5 blocks away from the right field corner. The entry to the BART station is actually at 20th and Broadway. It wouldn't be possible to build a closer station because BART's tunnel makes a westerly (left) turn just past 20th Street before it aligns with I-980/CA-24.

San Jose looks to acquire PG&E substation

Barry Witt's report in today's Merc covers San Jose's efforts to get PG&E to study moving a substation located on the Diridon South site. The substation could either be reconfigured or moved. A potential site is the fire training center on the other side of Park Avenue.

The substation is wedged between the old Stephens Meat plant (which closed down last month) and the Union Pacific/Amtrak/Caltrain tracks, towards the northern end of the trapezoid-shaped lot. I have been told that substation, which is roughly the shape of a square that juts into adjacent properties, could be reconfigured to run parallel to the tracks. If that's the case, it would be the most cost-efficient option since it may be possible to move without rerouting the high-tension transmission lines that run above the property.

One more property acquisition may be required for the ballpark to work properly. A small parking lot just north of the substation is used as long term parking for Amtrak riders. If the ballpark were to have a southeast orientation, there might not be enough space put in a proper field without this space. That is, unless the designers want yet another bandbox.

---

Update (10/26, 10:44): Another article which quotes Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone is on the CBS-5/KPIX website.

San Jose - Renovate Muni or Pursue A's?

San Jose has, for lack of a better term, found itself in a bit of a pickle. The city's oft-forgotten Class A San Jose Giants play in the historically rich but otherwise decrepit Municipal Stadium. An article in this week's San Jose Business Journal reports on the Giants' parent team, the San Francisco Giants, giving a 2007 deadline to renovate the stadium or the S.J. Giants will move. Towards the end of the article are a few nuggets about MLB's territorial rights issue.

Of course, many of the San Jose politicos are focused on "bigger" things like their downtown ballpark site, which is being bought by the city's Redevelopment Agency in hopes of prepping the site for the A's. Still, there's a vocal group of S.J. Giants supporters and preservationists that want to get Muni up to par with the rest of the California League. Considering the resounding success of Stockton's Banner Island Ballpark, Muni pales in comparison.

Complicating matters is a plan to redevelop much of the area, which also contains Spartan Stadium, Logitech Ice (where the Sharks practice), Spartan Village to the north, and Kelley Park to the east. The plan would convert the area, which I've at times called a "black hole," into a large mixed-development concept with new retail and medium-density housing. The plan also calls for changes to Spartan Stadium, which the San Jose Earthquakes are looking to upgrade if they don't relocate first. City Council member Cindy Chavez, who is considered the frontrunner in the 2006 mayoral race, supports this plan. The biggest issues with the plan are the costs associated with rebuilding two stadiums (which have to be voter-approved) and other ancillary costs, which may include cleanup of a Superfund site south of Spartan Stadium. There's also the problem of light rail, which is a prohibitive mile west of the area along CA-87.

Where would the S.J. Giants go if they left San Jose? Try Napa or Sonoma, or maybe Contra Costa County.

In the end, it may come down to a debate about getting a major league team at the expense of losing a piece of history (Muni and the Giants - though the Giants have only been around since 1988). As the campaign moves forward, the candidates, including Chavez, Chuck Reed, and pro-major league candidate Dave Cortese will have plenty of opportunities to convince San Jose voters why their respective vision is best.

R.I.P. Bill King

I remember this routine I had as a child. As a typical latchkey kid, I'd come home with my twin brother to an empty house. During baseball season, my brother and I would have time to watch the dynamic duo of G.I. Joe and Transformers. After the cartoons ended, my brother would head to a neighbor's house. I'd stay home and go straight to the radio. If the A's were playing on the East Coast, the cartoons would lead up to an East Coast 4:35 start.

I'd move from the family room to the living room, where the old Sears console stereo sat in corner. The console was multi-functional, as it served as a real piece of furniture that happened to have speakers and an analog dial. I had long ago broken the record player after repeatedly playing an old floppy red Sweet Pickles record one too many times. As part of the routine, I pulled out my homework, math first, and laid it out on the console's table area. I didn't realize it then, but this was my first experience with multitasking, and it would serve me well in later years.

Bill and Lon often alternated responsibilities to keep things fresh. One would do the lineups and the first half-inning, the other would do the next two innings. Both did TV back then, so it wasn't uncommon to hear only one of them during the broadcast at times while the other did TV, but it was pure magic when both were in the radio booth trading barbs and stories. Bill's feisty nature was a perfect foil for Lon's laid-back, dry humor. Sometimes I felt as if I had this set of invisible grandfathers in the console, teaching me about the game, about the meaning of a word donnybrook (which they only used for high-scoring games). I remember:

• John Shulock's enormous ego and hot temper
• How Dave Kingman was virtually useless in the field but was still entertaining just because of his swing
• The optimism in their voices about the 1986-87 teams, which were young and talent-rich
• The explanation of TLR's "Village Idiot" comment
  
• Exasperation at Luis Polonia's glove size and his Byrnes-like routes to the ball
• Bill deferring to Lon in the 9th inning of Game 4
• Not knowing about Bill's brilliance in working basketball play-by-play until I heard archived broadcasts some years later
• How Bill cherished the challenge that broadcasting baseball brought. Not to belittle hoops, but the action on the court was plentiful enough to get a rhythm going and coast it all the way through. Baseball required a different skillset, one of frequent metaphors and similes and the occasional bit of alliteration. It's why he stopped doing TV.
  
• Bill's complete dissatisfaction with interleague play, Bud Selig (who was sardonically coined "our brilliant leader" once, IIRC), and The Ballpark in Arlington
• Bill's love of New York, Boston, and Seattle
• How on more than one occasion, another broadcaster recounted (Lon, Ray, or Ken) picking Bill up from his hotel room, only to be greeted by either the smell of raw onions or thick cigar smoke.
• Bill's recent attempts to inject his "street" knowledge, especially of hip-hop music, into some broadcasts.
  
• Bill phoning into Gary Radnich's show a few weeks ago to tell a story about the first spike he saw in the NFL (the Raiders' Hewritt Dixon) and how Bill's trademark handlebar moustache was non-conformist, forcing the TV network to hire two schmos to do pre and postgame work while Bill, unseen, did the play-by-play telecast.
  

Wikipedia has already acknowledged Bill King's passing today.

I'll miss Bill more than anything. Three years ago, longtime colleague Chick Hearn passed away, ironically while recovering after hip surgery. Maybe they've already donned their headsets to work play-by-play in heaven. But not before Bill stopped to have a chat and a drink with Wilt Chamberlain and Billy Martin.

An attendance comparison

Below is a table showing seasonal attendance totals for the 2000-2005 seasons. By representing the data in this manner, certain conclusions can be drawn about the nature of baseball attendance. But before I get to that, here's the table:



First, I should point out the reasoning behind picking the selected five teams. All are California teams, which after looking at different demographic data from all 30 MLB teams, provide the best direct comparisons because of similar climate, economies, commute/travel issues, and similar availability of substitutes (other forms of entertainment).

The figures in red indicate a watershed event. For the 2000 Giants, it was their inaugural season at their new ballpark. The 2003 Angels had a huge attendance boost after they won World Series. The Padres opened their new venue in 2004. At first it may not seem like much in terms of commonality, but each instance provided a catalyst for substantial attendance growth.

---

The Dodgers have been almost guaranteed of 3 million each season over the last decade. Dodger Stadium has managed to retain much of its luster despite being 43 years old. Recent renovation has been done in steps, starting with the addition of club sections and more field level seats. The next phase involves redoing the bleacher pavilion sections and changes to concourse circulation. No change is expected to affect attendance much, except perhaps to retain fans instead of losing them to the Angels.

That other L.A. team did not experience a huge attendance boost when Anaheim Stadium was reborn as a baseball-only facility in 1996. The team had just come off a dismal 70-91 season, and fans weren't buying into a repackaged "Big A." The Angels turned it around to have a 84-78 record in 1997. Fans rewarded the Angels in the 1998 season, as the new bandwagon netted a whopping 42% seasonal gain. This was maintained until two straight 3rd place finishes kept them at the 2 million mark. The bandwagon was slow to get involved in 2002, resulting in a 15% rise to 2.3 million. After the World Championship, however, attendance has been steadily above 3 million and continues to rise as fans responded to investments in superstars such as Vladimir Guerrero, as well as a successful marketing campaign in the entire L.A. area. It's a credit to owner Arte Moreno that he hasn't chosen to rest on his laurels after buying the team in 2003. He used that inherited goodwill as capital to expand the fanbase. He may have alienated Orange County fans with the adoption of the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" moniker, but so far there hasn't been any visible backlash. Though the Angels are expected to be contenders next year and have plenty of young talent stashed away in the minors, they also face difficult payroll decisions in the next two years that could quickly escalate their payroll beyond tenable levels.

Near the border, Petco Park gave the Padres a 50% increase in attendance from 2003 to 2004. Seasonal attendance exhibited a gradual decline until the opening of the park, as if fans waited until the park opened to attend games. In 2005, the novelty effect of Petco wore off slightly, resulting in a 7% dip even though the team won the division - albeit while posting a worse record. The venue has shown itself to be a pitcher's park, which may make it difficult to sign a free agent slugger, which could then translate into lower fan interest and attendance. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years, as the Padres run into the upper limits of the revenue the ballpark provides towards payroll, the talented young core emerges from team-controlled and arbitration years into free agency, and the at times chilly Petco weather becomes a detractor. It is for these reasons that I think the Padres' situation most parallels the A's - if the A's were to get a new ballpark in the next few years.

SBC (soon to be AT&T?) Park has been an unquestionable success for the Giants. Over 3 million each year have gone through the turnstiles since the place opened, so it's hard to argue with the effect the ballpark has had on the team's fortunes and the city itself. It is important to point out the incremental effect other factors have had on the attendance mark. The Giants have remained in contention throughout throughout all six years and have a World Series appearance to go with it. Barry Bonds's home run theatrics have turned the ballpark into an almost transcendent setting with the heightened drama his at bats bring. The weather has at times been better, though the wind and fog has not been mitigated as well as hoped. Lastly, SBC Park's superior accessibility from multiple modes of public transit have not only brought fans more easily from the existing fanbase in the outer reaches of S.F., Marin County, and the Peninsula (via Caltrain), it has also pulled fans more easily from the East Bay, which happens to be the A's stronghold. It's difficult to say how big an effect SBC Park has had on the A's attendance. It's doubtful that it could translate into anything more than 1-2% of A's seasonal totals.

There has been talk that the A's may have reached an attendance ceiling given the circumstances. Let's look at the different factors (excuses?):

• Second team in the smallest two-team market
• Inferior venue with too many seats to restrict supply
• No "nightlife" around Coliseum
• Cold night games due to marine layer-influenced bay microclimate
• Loss of identifiable stars to free agency (Giambi, Tejada, Damon) and trades (Mulder, Hudson)
• Uncertainty regarding the team's future in Oakland
• Promotions like bobblehead giveaways and "Double Play Wednesdays" ($2 tickets) drawing fans away from non-promotion games
• The Giants and SBC Park "stealing" fans away from the A's
• The reputation of the California or Bay Area sports fan - not as rabid or passionate as an East Coast fan
• Competition among other teams and forms of entertainment
  

Winning a World Series could provide a sizable boost in season ticket sales, but if the next season the A's had one of their historically poor starts, the reduced walk-up sales and rising no-shows could quickly cancel them out. The Florida Marlins are a classic example of this. Sustained success with real improvements (AL pennant, World Series) are the only way to keep the fans. The Marlins are the extreme due to unusual circumstances. The Twins and Braves are more similar to the A's - since all three teams are perceived to be unable to advance past a certain point in the playoffs, fan interest has not improved beyond a certain ceiling level.

While a ballpark can help improve many of these areas, it isn't a total solution. Siting the ballpark at the Coliseum won't help with the weather, though it may be compelling enough that fans cease to use the weather as yet another excuse. An extra $20-40 million per year will help retain one or two stars, but Billy Beane's not going to start spending like Brian Cashman and Theo Epstein. It's clear that for the A's to add and subsequently retain fan interest, they'll have to:

• Get the ballpark built
• Maintain a modicum of success to ensure good walk-up crowds after the novelty wears off
• Achieve either a pennant or World Series win to counter poor perception and create a "halo effect"
  
• Market aggressively through multiple forms of media (TV, radio, print, net)
• Sign or re-sign one or more marquee players
• Create partnerships through long-term deals with the flagship radio affiliate

It's a tall order, and it doesn't all have to be done, nor does it all have to be done at once. It doesn't venture into an even more ideal situation, such as the creation of a regional sports network. But if those six steps above aren't attempted, the A's won't maximize the potential of the sophisticated and fickle Bay Area market.

Contra Costa Times supports Fremont

A newly penned editorial in today's Contra Costa Times welcomes Fremont's attempts to get the A's. Since it's early in the game, there are no detailed specifics to criticize, such as public funding. The editorial qualifies the notion by emphasizing that the paper doesn't necessarily want the A's to leave Oakland, but if this is what it takes to stay in the Bay Area, so be it.

HomeBase (Coliseum South) fire

Local evening newscasts all have reported a seven alarm fire tonight burning at the old HomeBase (Coliseum South) site immediately to the south of the Coliseum complex. I took pictures of the site several months ago and compiled them into an overview (PDF format). The site has been vacant for several years and though it is fenced off, there are several openings in the fence for people to enter. I never saw anyone there when I walked around the place to take pictures, but it's probably a very inviting place for anyone that needs a roof and cover from police. The EDD building next door appeared to be threatened earlier, but reports as of 11:30 indicate that the fire is now under control. I sincerely hope no one was hurt or killed, though I have to wonder if this is somehow related to the displacement of a large homeless camp along the Lake Merritt inlet, next to the Oak-to-Ninth site. There weren't many places the affected homeless persons to go after the camp was broken up, and the HomeBase building certainly could have functioned as shelter. Posted below are the old picture montage of the site and an aerial view.

---

The flood control channel that surrounds the site may act as a buffer, but some of the peripheral structures at the Coliseum may be in jeopardy, such as a cell phone tower and the football seats (which may be installed in the Coliseum right now).

News from other projects

Some good reading from other cities where ballparks are in various planning stages:

• Backers of a downtown Kansas City ballpark launched a new website yesterday promoting the concept. A Powerpoint presentation in PDF format is available on the site. The presentation goes over downtown resurgence in other cities: San Francisco, Cleveland, Denver, and Pittsburgh. Obviously, the numbers are spun to give as favorable a view as possible, and I've read as many articles that say the Cleveland redevelopment plan has failed as I have that it has succeeded. I also can't agree with the design, which looks too reminiscent of SBC Park and doesn't address SBC's main flaw: the left field corner seating on the second and third tiers. If you've sat there before, you know what I mean.
• There's a great article in the Washington City Paper (weekly) about the me-too style and lack of innovation in the DC Navy Yard ballpark concept. If you want a primer on how to design a fan-unfriendly park, this is it. If you want something that makes much more sense for the suits, bleacher bums, and families, check back here in a few weeks. Note: the writer bases much of his judgments on the DC ballpark terms, which were published several months ago.
• It appears that any hope for a Twins' stadium to be approved this year has evaporated, as state legislators have shown no interest in a special session to vote on non-emergency issues.
• A key big development project that was planned for Las Vegas has collapsed, leaving it unclear where a future ballpark fits in. The news may be good or bad for Vegas depending on which new developer steps in for The Related Cos. Still no word on the cost of building a ballpark (domed or not?) and the unknown method of funding it, let alone what Mayor Oscar Goodman will do about addressing the gambling issue.
  

Fremont City Council approves study

The preliminary feasibility study was unanimously approved (5-0) tonight in what could be viewed as a formality. City Manager Fred Diaz plans to spend $30-50,000 on the study, which will cover land use, transportation, and costs for future services for the planned development. The study will take 90 days or more to complete, and there is no hurry since it should dovetail with Wolff's announcement prior to or at the beginning of the 2006 season.

There were some interesting comments from the mayor and council members:

• Mayor Bob Wasserman said that he was first contacted by Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. Wasserman isn't operating under any delusions regarding the concept. There is huge potential, but there are also downsides. The effort is rooted in the idea of keeping the team in Alameda County. Whatever plan comes out of it will be a joint effort between the city and county.
  
• Council member Dominick Dutra asked what kinds of communications the city has had with Wolff. The answer was that they were basically "outreach"-type discussions, but nothing of any real substance since the A's are still negotiating with Oakland.
• The study isn't just for a ballpark. Another idea is a regional sports facility, which could mean any number of things: sports complex, soccer stadium and fields, almost anything. The facility could be built alongside or instead of the ballpark.
  
• There was no mention of public or private financing. It's too early in the process to start discussing such specifics.

Probably the most interesting thing about the session was what happened before the council approved the study. The council acknowledged several police officers who had reached 20-25 years of service with the Fremont Police Department. Most of them had either been born in Fremont or spent the majority of their lives there. It was rather refreshing to see that in an area that is known for its large transplant and transient population, that these officers had been home for so long. It also speaks to the "smallness" of Fremont, that this city of 200,000 has a sense of community and security that belies its physical size: 93 square miles, the second largest in terms of area in the Bay Area. Council member Anu Natarajan mentioned that local writer Jaime Richards felt that Fremont was "on the verge of greatness," and Fremont's suburban nature will always keep it in a struggle between its near-small town character and its cosmopolitan desires. It's the same issue that has dogged San Jose for much of the last 25 years, though San Jose's sheer population size makes it far too big for anyone to feel that sense of intimacy there.

One more thing - council member Bob Wieckowski donned an A's cap while calling for the motion to approve the study. Natarajan seconded the motion, and the vote was taken. The session was adjourned shortly thereafter.

p.s. (10:03 pm) - Where do people get the idea that "Oakland" will remain with the team name if it moves to Fremont? Fremont also wants to get on the map with this move. It's not entirely altruistic. If Fremont's going to make the large investment (land, money), they should get the team name. It was part of the two Santa Clara deals. I hate to bring it up, but there's no glamour in the name "Oakland." There's a better chance of the team being named "The San Francisco Athletics of Fremont" than the retention of the name "Oakland Athletics." Leave your emotional attachments at the door, folks. To the victors go the spoils.

Fremont City Council meeting tonight

Fremont's City Council is considering conducting a ballpark preliminary feasibility study tonight. Here are the specifics:

• 7. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER

  7.1 PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR POSSIBLE PROPOSAL TO OAKLAND A’S

  Consideration of a Preliminary Study and the Possibility of a Proposal to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team to Locate in Fremont

  Contact Person:

  Name: Fred Diaz Christine S. Daniel

  Title: City Manager Deputy City Manager

  Dept.: City Manager’s Office City Manager’s Office

  Phone: 510-284-4002 510-284-4008

  E-Mail: fdiaz@ci.fremont.ca.us cdaniel@ci.fremont.ca.us

  RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to retain a consultant and conduct a preliminary feasibility study or studies to enable the Council to determine whether to make a proposal to the Oakland Athletics baseball team to locate in Fremont, should their ongoing negotiations with the City of Oakland not prove successful.

If you're interested, the meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Council Chambers is at 3300 Capitol Avenue in Fremont, within walking distance of the Fremont BART station and the Fremont Hub shopping center. I'll be there, and I should have a follow-up post later tonight.

Susquehanna Media finds a buyer

To cap a fairly news-heavy end of the week, Reuters reports that Susquehanna Media is about to be sold to a group of investors including Cumulus Media. Cumulus has around 300 stations in mostly mid-market areas, and acquiring the Susquehanna portfolio of stations expands its reach into bigger markets like the San Francisco Bay Area. Cumulus does not currently have a presence in the Bay Area, so they won't be forced to divest other stations to run newly acquired ones.

It's unlikely that there will be any serious changes to KNBR. KTCT remains a question mark, but since it will probably remain part of the parent company, any opportunity for A's to acquire it appears to have passed. Next up is the sale of Disney's ABC Radio properties, which constitutes an even bigger portfolio than Susquehanna. Expect Disney to sell the radio business whole, not piecemeal (individual stations).

Dellums to run for Oakland mayor.

Former US representative Ron Dellums has announced his candidacy for the Oakland mayoral position at a press conference held at Laney College at noon today. He will be running against the previously mentioned city council president Ignacio De La Fuente, councilmember Nancy Nadel, school board members Greg Hodge and Dan Siegel, Alameda County treasurer Donald White, and Glynn Washington, whose Council for Responsible Public Investment is a sort of CALPERS investment watchdog. Now that the slate has been set, we should soon see what their official public positions are on the Coliseum North project, and on a ballpark in general.

The mayoral election is scheduled for June 2006.

Lew & Billy on Ronn Owens show

Ronn Owens had Lew Wolff and Billy Beane in the last hour of Owens's show on KGO yesterday. In between Owens's efforts to get Beane to admit that he dislikes Ken Macha (which didn't work) and goodnatured barbs about Billy's "8-track"-like monochrome Blackberry (I have one, it's from work so it's free and it works so I can't complain), Wolff answered all manner of ballpark-related questions.

Caller: What's wrong with the Coliseum?
Wolff: We have 140 deficiencies relative to our baseball operation alone in that facility. But more important, MLB wants all the teams to have a baseball-only facility, and we're one of the last ones around that needs to fit to that criteria.

• I hadn't heard of the "140 deficiencies" before. I'd like to see that list. I can think of a dozen, but those mainly deal with the fan experience, not baseball itself.
  

Owens: Can the market (East Bay-San Francisco) really support two teams?
Wolff: The answer to that with some clarification is "No it can't," in the sense that if there were only no team in Oakland or no team in San Francisco, MLB would only allow one team in the area. So we have to sort of force feed a ballpark to work in Oakland or Alameda County which we're trying to do by finding a site, first of all, and also trying to measure (which we'll do in the next couple of months) the depth of interest in our special suites and boxes.

• It's very important to not take this answer out of context, or to not exclude the qualifier. What Wolff is saying is probably true from the sense that if one team were in place and MLB were looking for an expansion or relocation franchise, the East Bay market would not immediately be a candidate for a second team. And if MLB were to start over from scratch, it probably wouldn't automatically place two teams in the area. Now since a second team is already present, they'll do what they can to support the second team. One could glean from the response that it's a sort of veiled threat - that if the A's were to move out, no one should expect a second team to replace it anytime soon. Sounds like a shot across the bows of Oakland, Alameda County, San Jose, etc.
  
• The second part of the answer, gauging the interest in the suites/boxes, should not be disregarded. It's almost as important as getting a site, because it's a measure of whether the market can economically support the team. Wolff is not about to get himself into a situation where he has a bunch of unsold suites, as many teams are starting to find out with their new ballparks. It's a challenge to what I wrote a couple of days ago about Oakland not being a small market team. If the sales of these suites don't pass this litmus test, the Oakland is a small - and thereby incapable - market, at least by Wolff's and baseball's standards. There is probably some amount of grey area with this issue, at least.
  

Owens: What if it isn't up to what you'll expect?
Wolff: Our next choice would be to find a location somewhere in Alameda County. After that, I really don't know what to do.
Owens: But the odds are that you guys will stay at least in Alameda County?
Wolff: We're trying to.
Owens (turns to Beane): Try to drive a truck through that answer too, huh Billy?

Owens: How about going to San Jose? Do you know the way there?
Wolff: I know the way there. I'm very active in San Jose, it's a great city. First of all, baseball does have a formal area - districts as they call them or territories, and the Giants have that territory. So the only way that would be changed is if there was an agreement with the Giants or with MLB. It's not a legal issue that some people would like to pursue. And the other thing is San Jose - and I was party to it, I think - has a requirement of having a vote, a public vote, for any expenditure for sports - I think it's over $20,000 or some de minimis amount - and that vote would require some team to say "We'll come subject to a vote," whether it's baseball, football, whatever it is. And that's a big inhibitor even if the territorial thing was available.

• The important thing here is that Wolff hasn't changed his stance since the last time he spoke about San Jose. Back then, he said wouldn't challenge territorial rights, and he has remained consistent. He did bring up the concept of MLB changing rights, but Selig was in San Jose only a few weeks ago and said that that to do so would create anarchy - though he did not dismiss the idea altogether.
  
• It's interesting that Wolff brought up the San Jose's vote-expenditure law. He's right, but it appears that San Jose may have effectively evaded the law by acquiring the Diridon South properties and claiming that they are for housing or mixed-use without actually specifying a particular purpose. Sneaky - yes. The revealing thing is that he's following the recent trend of proponents trying to get a ballpark through without a public vote - a tactic which has worked in DC and is being tried in Minneapolis - as though any kind of vote were a non-starter. There may be some wiggle room, since SF and SJ voted down publicly-funded parks while SF approved the Pac Bell Park deal, but getting an owner to commit to announcing anything as significant as a move would be like pulling teeth, since the owner would lose some negotiating leverage and encounter backlash.
  

Owens: How's the project (Coliseum North) going?
Wolff: The progress is basically getting our ducks in a row to see if we can privately convince the property owners - and there's quite a few of them - that this might be to their advantage to be bought out, perhaps relocate in other places in Oakland. So it's a challenge but our problem is that no one has offered or presented us any other sites, and there's a logic to being in that location because it's adjacent to the Coliseum, it has BART, which is critical to us, and the freeway system. So it's quite a challenge. Some people think we've teed up something that can't happen. That's possible to think that way, but we're gonna give it a real shot before we look at other alternates.

• This may be the most troubling part of the interview to me. Wolff hasn't dismissed the idea of other sites which may be more or less feasible, but the fact that no one has formally presented any is disturbing. It's as if all of the ballpark eggs are being put in this one basket. Wolff has acknowledged from the beginning that the Coliseum North project is going to be difficult. It would be nice to know that there was a reasonable detailed concept of a Plan B floating around the Oakland Civic Center somewhere.
  

The whole interview is subject to some broad interpretation, but unless someone wants to spend a lot of time reading between the lines, the substance of what was being said is pretty much the status quo: Coliseum is inadequate, project is challenging but is moving along, San Jose isn't in our territory, etc.

Tribune: Progress internally, but externally?

According to a new article in the Tribune, there is some good and bad news about the ballpark. The good news is that Oakland has assigned a staffer to work on the project, and that IDLF said that the city should have a detailed report (feasibility study?) done this winter. The bad news is that apparently none of the area landowners have yet been contacted by the city. That's not entirely bad since the city is still trying to figure out proper market values of the properties, along with relocation costs. It would behoove Oakland to make sure they were armed with the proper information before they start knocking on doors. Then again, the "...consensus around here is that the A's are doing this as a posturing move," according to one of the landowners who runs a soapmaking business. Perhaps the operative rule is, "You do not talk about ballpark."

Dellums delays announcement

According to the Chronicle, Ron Dellums will not announce his decision whether or not to run for Mayor of Oakland until Friday. The announcement was originally thought to be scheduled for this weekend. Don't look for Dellums to be a stadium proponent.

Understanding the markets

Most of you should be pretty familiar with the following map:

This is basically how we in the nine-county Bay Area view ourselves. There are some who consider parts of Marin County essentially an extension of San Francisco, and there are those who consider parts of San Mateo and Alameda Counties to be part of Silicon Valley, making them an extension of the South Bay. Many commuters come from cities like Tracy and Hollister, which are outside these county boundaries. This is the population breakdown by area, based on 2004 estimates:

• SF/Peninsula (red): 1,443,446
• North Bay (gray): 1,259,804
• East Bay (green): 2,464,379
• South Bay (blue): 1,685,188
• Total Bay Area Population: 6,852,817
  

The 6.85 million total puts the Bay Area at #4 in the country among metropolitan areas. For some reason the US Census has chosen to break the Bay Area into two regions, one including only Santa Clara county, and the other including everything else except for Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. If you look at the Bay Area based on that division, the population of the larger area (called SF-Oakland-Fremont) is 5,167,629, while the separate South Bay stays as is. With the split, the SF-Oakland-Fremont area is #12 in the nation, while the South Bay is #28.

If you think that lacks uniformity, take a look at this map showing how MLB has divided the Bay Area with respect to stadium building:

The five orange counties represent Giants territory, while the two green areas represent A's territory. Not shown is Monterey County, which was up until recently part of the Giants' territory. Lew Wolff mentioned during his August press conference that Monterey County may be part of the A's territory, though it's likely he misspoke - not that anyone's going to build a ballpark in Carmel or Salinas. The three gray North Bay counties are unassigned. Based on this form of gerrymandering, here are how the individual territories compare to the other California teams' defined territories in terms of metro population:

• Giants - 4,039,941
• A's - 2,464,379
• Padres - 2,931,714
• Dodgers/Angels - 13,723,029 (the two teams share LA, Ventura, and Orange counties)
  

The A's territory, while not a result of an equitable split, still compares favorably to Pittsburgh (#20), Tampa-St. Petersburg (#21), and Denver (#22). Yet by limiting the A's territory to Alameda and Contra Costa counties, it gives the appearance that the East Bay by itself is a small market. But is it?

The problem with this definition of territories is that it makes it appear that residents of one territory do not travel outside their counties to work, shop, or enjoy entertainment such as a baseball game. This is obviously not the case in the Bay Area, where residents are used to driving a half-hour to get to an event, whether it's held in San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose. San Jose and Oakland television stations all try to broadcast from towers near San Francisco because Mt. San Bruno's central location allows them to capture more of the Bay Area. The Giants and A's draw from all over the Bay Area, though both have entrenched fanbases in their respective communities. Only one conclusion can be made from this analysis:

The Oakland Athletics are not a small market team.

If the A's aren't a small market team, what is responsible for the attendance problem? Can it only be blamed on the ballpark?

Next up: A comparison of attendance prior to and following: A) a World Series win, and B) the opening of a new stadium.

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.