Liveblog from City Council Session

Media is present. Local movers and shakers present. Lots of people wearing A's gear in the house. There will be many comments made. I will only cover notable comments, positive, negative, and in between. Mayor Reed takes care of a ceremonial item, and we're off.

7:20 - Reed prefaces this by going over the circumstances that got San Jose to this point, repeats the mantra that San Jose is in MLB's hands re: T-rights. "Let's get to work again," he says.

Harry Mavrogenes (Redevelopment) does short presentation. "With proper management a project like this could be an asset to the area." He brings out map. Need revision: AT&T parcels include San Fernando parking lot next to old Stevens plant.

EIR indicated improved access necessary by connecting Autumn Street between Coleman and Julian. Engineering plans are 35% complete. Acquisition process of property for Autumn Street/Parkway has begun.

7:28 - Comments start now. Michael Mulcahy starts (Baseball San Jose/Pro Baseball for San Jose, Inc.) off. Cites Cisco as even more motivated. Thanks the mayor.

Former mayor Janet Gray Hayes chimes in. Notes that she was originally opposed to the Arena, now says she was wrong and that the situation was managed beautifully. Supports ballpark. Representatives of the San Jose Arena Authority, Soccer Silicon Valley, and County Assessor Larry Stone come out in support.

First child speaks in favor about 10 speakers in, Matt Ross of Los Gatos. So far, two residents of the site-adjacent Georgetown neighborhood have spoken in favor.

First different viewpoint, a family including a small child. Is mostly concerned about the San Jose Giants' future and the family friendly nature of Single-A baseball.

First opposing viewpoint, slams Mulcahy for coming in 5th in mayoral election.

Transit planning advocate wants ballpark to be designed with HSR in mind. Wants City to do a comprehensive EIR update that includes all public facilities including transit and parks.

7:54 - Senior VP of McAfee (yes, that McAfee) represents the Chamber. Supports ballpark.

A partner at Deloitte & Touche (which has an office downtown) supports ballpark as a quality of life/recruitment plus.

Member of the Market-Almaden neighborhood (Convention Center) support a ballpark, but want City to give area residents a strong vote. One of them showed my 2-D model on the projector.

John Pastier, former architectural critic for LA Times speaks and ballpark historian (lives in Naglee Park neighborhood). Notes how horrible the Coliseum was for the World Series. Supports ballpark.

Parks & Rec commissioner or District 6 asks for partnerships to build/maintain sports fields.

8:09 - Someone finally talks about T-rights!

Shasta/Hanchett resident speaks out about fiscal responsibility. Two other area residents say that Diridon South is needed for transit facilities, not a ballpark. Both would like to see The Alameda transformed into a pedestrian friendly, tree lined boulevard. The back end of the comments period has more cautionary commenters, most of whom are asking for a full rewrite of the EIR.

Ross Signorino has a sign saying "Be a good neighbor dume (sic) stadium." Every city has at least one of him. He's wearing a Baseball San Jose shirt, given out at the famous rally at which former council member Forrest Williams cried, "San Jose has a constitutional right to have a baseball team!" Or something to that effect.

Marc Morris, who challenged the traffic study in the EIR, also feels that the land would be better used for development of the transit hub.

Carl Guardino (SVLG) speaks second to last. Talks survey. 285 members were sent survey. 120 responses were received in a week. Survey consists of 3 questions with 2 sub-questions.

• Do you agree that the CIty of San Jose should be the home a MLB team? - 70% Yes, 10% No, 19% No opinion
• Companies currently sponsoring/advertising with the Giants who would support the A's - 68% Yes
• Companies hold season tickets or luxury boxes - 70% Yes, 13% No, 17% No opinion

SVLG will post results shortly on its website. SVLG will take issue to board before taking a formal position.

Former mayor Susan Hammer speaks last. Thinks the ballpark can be done, unlike 1992. Supports ballpark.

8:49 - Comments ended. Council members speak before a motion on the floor. Ash Kaira defends the previous EIR process, saying that it was thorough. Nancy Pyle mentions that the Arena has brought $1.28 billion to San Jose since its opening. Reed wants guidelines for a public/private partnership, and emphasizes a net positive impact to the general fund. (I wonder what that means?)

9:14 - Motion approved, on to the next step.

Survey: 70% of South Bay corporations support move to SJ

A survey done by tech industry lobbying firm SVLG shows that of its constituent members, 70% would support the A's in San Jose. Surprisingly, many of those companies already support the Giants yet would support both the Giants and A's if the A's relocated south. The timing makes it almost certain that the survey's results will be mentioned in tonight's City Council session. It's quite reassuring for San Jose partisans, who appear to be building a case for the move, the first tenet being the South Bay's "independence" from T-rights.

A list of SVLG's 293 members can be found here. Note that it isn't restricted to Silicon Valley, though most of the roster is based there.

San Jose and Santa Clara County actions tonight

In the wake of media reports about San Jose and Santa Clara County looking to free themselves from the Giants' territorial clutches, both will take up the matter tonight at their respective governing body sessions.

I will be attending the San Jose session, which is scheduled to start at 7 PM, in the Council Chambers inside San Jose City Hall. The agenda item is as follows:

9. JOINT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD TO CONSIDER ITEM 9.1 IN A JOINT SESSION
9.1 A’s Stadium in San José.
Attachment – Memo from Mayor Reed
Recommendation: As referred by the Rules and Open Government Committee on March 11, 2009, consider the following actions:
(a) Discuss actions that San José can take to prepare for the possibility that Major League Baseball (MLB) makes a decision allowing the Athletics (A’s) to consider relocating to San José
(b) Direct staff to prepare and return to Council with a Resolution indicating the desire of the City of San José to support the A’s if MLB favors a relocation of the A’s to San José; and, indicating that the City is willing to accommodate the A’s on the site at Park Avenue and Autumn/Montgomery Streets.
(c) Direct a team of City and Redevelopment Agency staff to assess what steps may need to be taken to prepare the site at Park Avenue and Autumn/Montgomery Streets for potential consideration, and develop an outreach program to neighboring residents and businesses.
(d) Direct staff to provide a status report and recommendations for additional actions that may need Council authorization to the Community and Economic Development Committee within two months of the April 7th Council hearing followed by a discussion at the City Council.
(Mayor)
[Rules Committee referral 3/11/09 – Item 10.1(b)]
TO BE HEARD IN THE EVENING

You'll be able to find the stream here. On a related note, San Jose approved chopping 30% off last year's sale price of the Airport West land. That's a cool $40 million. Airport West is going to be used for the Quakes' 15,000-seat stadium, plus future office/retail development.

Santa Clara County's involvement is less direct, and their issue is more a matter of supporting San Jose than anything else.

8A.

Consider recommendations relating to Major League Baseball's Territorial Rights for Santa Clara County.

Possible action:

1. Adopt Resolution requesting that Major League Baseball act on the territorial rights in the County of Santa Clara. (Roll Call Vote)

2. Approve letter regarding Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Santa Clara County Territorial Rights and direct Clerk of the Board to forward letter to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig.

Transmittal BOSD308 040709
Resolution (Resolution)
Letter to Commissioner Bud Selig (A - Multiple Recommendations)

Baseball San Jose is scheduled to have a pre-session event at Billy Berks, a few blocks away from City Hall on 1st and San Fernando.

New post on SJ City Council session later tonight. I may liveblog again.

If Hollywood can do it, so can I

Hope springs eternal on Opening Day. A month ago I took the wraps off a site redesign. Now it's time for another new feature I've been working on - 3D modeling. That's right, all those mockups I've been doing are going to be in 3D. Several films are coming out in 3D, so it makes sense for the progression to happen here as well. The model featured here and all future models will be available for you to download and play around with if you so choose.

Above: Google Earth skyline view behind home plate. Below: View from southeast, HP Pavilion in background

Download links:

• Model for use in Google Earth (requires either Google Earth application or plugin)
  
• Google Sketchup working file (requires Google Sketchup)
  

Both Google Sketchup and Google Earth are free apps, so get cracking!

Now for some notes on the model:

• Depending on whether or not you have the Terrain feature selected in Google Earth, the stadium and field may appear to be raised above street level. This is intentional, as the field is meant to be sunken and if it were the terrain would obscure it.
• There are no concourses, suites, scoreboards, or visual effects in the model. This was done mostly to get it out the door. Eventually all of that stuff will be added. Update: Added concourses, batter's eye.
  
• I am working on a site-nonspecific model that could be planted in the Coliseum and elsewhere.
• Press box is above and behind the upper deck.
• The building to the left of dead center is a restaurant/club. Presumably a scoreboard would be affixed on top.
• The LF and CF walls are 9 feet high, RF is 21 feet high. Dimensions are 325' down the LF line, 322' down the RF line, 408' to center, 373' and 368' to the left and right power alleys.
• It may look like the ballpark has four decks, but it does not. It has two decks that are each split.
• Outlines for the bullpens are in left and left-center. Yes, the bleachers are elevated several feet above the pens. Several hundred seats are situated between the bullpens as well.
  
• The red area is the PG&E substation.
• I'm 99.9% certain of scale and size thanks to Sketchup. Previously, the mockups were drawn on Freehand/Illustrator and I had to use blown up aerial photos and parcel maps to line everything up properly.
  

Enjoy.

Players dump on Coliseum

CBS Sports baseball scribe Scott Miller writes from a national perspective, so you can't expect a lot of breaking local news from him. Still, he dug up some interesting quotes from players about the Coliseum, especially snakebit franchise cornerstone Eric Chavez.

"A couple of years ago, a new ballpark was of huge interest to me," said Chavez, 31. "Now, I don't see myself being around whenever we get a new stadium. So I don't pay much attention anymore.

"It's literally a Coliseum, where we play now. As a fan, it makes sense to go to a beautiful park like Pac Bell (in San Francisco), or whatever they call it now."

Now that is the sound of a beaten man. Why do I sense that Chavy will end his career as a Giant if he can't go to his childhood home San Diego? I'm going off on a tangent. Anyway, fan fave A.J. Pierzynski will no doubt endear himself even more to the Coliseum faithful with this gem:

"The dugouts aren't really dugouts. They're just benches they stuck in front of the fans."

Hey A-hole Jerkoff Pierzyzewkyszerbiak, most benches I've seen don't have a restroom at the end. Or bat racks for that matter.

Prodigal son Jason Giambi chimed in with his observations on the House that Boss Tweed George Steinbrenner built.

"It's unbelievable," said Giambi, who toured the new Yankee Stadium toward the end of last season when he still played for the Yankees. "It's a billion dollars. You can't even fathom that type of money. It has every amenity you could possibly want from a players' perspective and from a fans' perspective."

Each Yankee's locker will be equipped with a computer. There is a large video room just behind the Yankees' dugout, in which the players can watch videos of their at-bats -- or study the opposing pitcher -- just before heading to the batter's box.

I like the idea of all 25 players running into the clubhouse between at bats on April 13 just to send tweets via their locker-mounted computers.

Reed updates agenda for next week, issues resolution

SF Business Times' David Goll highlights a new memo by San Jose mayor Chuck Reed to the City Council. In the memo (PDF download) is the first mention of a request to MLB to "be freed of restrictive territorial rights." Verbatim:

3. Resolution of Support
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Major League Baseball with the October 5, 2004 Resolution of the City Council of the City of San José, (Resolution 72344), which includes a request to be freed of territorial rights.

Direct staff to prepare and return to Council with a Resolution indicating the desire of the City of San José to support the A's if MLB favors a relocation of the A's to San José along the lines of the attached draft.

There are other instructions outlining how related issues should be addressed, such as the EIR, site and area development plans, community outreach efforts, etc. But the meat is in the new Resolution, which is on the third page of the memo.

Again, just like with the Dellums letter to Selig, I have to ask if this is the most effective way to deal with the T-rights problem. It could be said that Dellums got some traction by getting the blue ribbon committee to evaluate Oakland (cynics like me would say that traction is very slight). A city resolution doesn't carry much weight unless it comes with a plan, or least a proper leadup to a plan. That's definitely what the City is putting together, but we're still around two months from seeing it.

This might be more of an indicator that it's time for MLB to take the negotiating reins from Lew Wolff, who would take more of Samson/Loria-in-the-background role.

Here's the full resolution for those who are interested:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE REQUESTING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL AWARD TERRITORIAL RIGHTS TO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TO THE A'S

WHEREAS, the local and regional economies would benefit from the relocation of the A's to San José; and,

WHEREAS, the San Francisco Giants currently have territorial rights to the County of Santa Clara, which were granted in 1992, during its consideration of a move to the County of Santa Clara; and,

WHEREAS, the A's have identified San José as its principal choice for its new location; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed site is immediately accessible by multiple transportation networks, including bus, light rail transit, Caltrain, and High Speed Rail and BART in the future; and,

WHEREAS, the City of San José's rights of self-determination, autonomy and independence are being compromised through a decision over which it has no control; and,

WHEREAS, the A's were gracious and cooperative in 1992 when asked to agree with the assignment of the territory; and,

WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara is one of two primary economic markets in Northern California, and includes San José which is third largest city in California.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby respectfullly request that Major League Baseball allow the A's a fair opportunity to move to San José.

Next week's gonna be very interesting. One more thing: Santa Clara County's Board of Supervisors is on board too.

Wolff on short leash? IDLF as savior?

Two Oakland-related items for this afternoon. The Trib thinks someone needs to pinch hit for Mayor Dellums if the A's are to stay in town, and I agree. Dellums isn't exactly the most proactive guy out there, and the City needs some who can work the system and has some passion for the cause. Naturally, the Trib drops the name of Ignacio De La Fuente. I'm certain that De La Fuente can broker a deal. Can he broker a good deal? That's the question. It's not an indictment of IDLF, rather it's a matter of whether or not the resources will be there to see it through.

Fresh from the rumor mill (via Scott Sabatini's Examiner article) is Zennie Abraham's suggestion that Lew Wolff was almost fired when the Fremont plan failed, and that he's now on a short leash. I agree with the second part more than the first, as many of Wolff's wounds from the past several weeks have been entirely self-inflicted. Enough to fire him? I doubt it. What's certain is that Lew will have to tighten things up to get through the San Jose labyrinth. And if he can't, I'm pretty sure he's gone. He was brought in to get a ballpark deal done, and if it can't get done there's not much purpose in having him around, is there? College frat buddy friendships only go so far. In the rest of Zennie's post he mentions redevelopment and stimulus funds. Please Zennie - don't go there! That's not change we can believe in.

If you have 20 minutes or so, check out Zennie's recently posted video on the Coliseum ballpark plan. The plan itself had to be "dusted off" as it hasn't been touched in a few years, but the concepts haven't changed. You'll notice the name Chris De Benedetti, the former ANG reporter who's now on the Mayor's Stadium Task Force. I find that fascinating, as former Merc reporter Barry Witt, who worked the San Jose/Santa Clara stadium beat, now works for the City of San Jose.

The last years of the Haas era revisited

I'm paraphrasing here, but here's a common refrain I've read lately:

Why can't we have owners like the Haas family, who respect the tradition of the Oakland A's and are willing to spend money?

Why not indeed? These damned money grubbing owners, all they want to do is (insert conspiracy theory here - apparently the theorists can't even come to a consensus this), they don't care about baseball! We need to exhume Wally Haas, reanimate him, sue MLB and the A's to invalidate the last two ownership groups, and put the soon-to-be canonized man back where he belongs, as owner of the A's.

Nostalgia's great, isn't it? We can choose to ignore certain facts that we feel are inconvenient. We can bask in the glory of the great triumphs while whistling in the dark about the more unsavory aspects.

When Rickey Henderson came back to the A's during the '89 season, it was a signal to fans from Haas and Sandy Alderson that the team was serious, that it was going to make its run. We all know about the great payoff for that season, but what happened the following years? As you can see from the chart below (data from the old Business of Baseball website), it was a tremendous struggle to stay competitive in the wake of baseball's economic upheaval. Some call it charity on Haas's part, I see it more as a very shrewd strategy. Haas saw that the Giants were struggling to get a new stadium in San Francisco, and there was a distinct opportunity for the A's to have the Bay Area all to themselves if the Giants left for Tampa Bay, or most of the Bay Area if they moved to San Jose.

The light blue line is the leading indicator. 1990, the team's last World Series appearance, was the last profitable season during the Haas era. From then on, the team lost a combined $30 million in 5 seasons. That's the equivalent of an entire season's payroll back then. Currently, the average payroll is around $90 million. Can you imagine the A's losing $90 million during a 5-year span? Fortunately, revenue sharing is around to help the bottom line, though even with the annual revenue sharing receipt, the A's would still lose money since their receipt would drop proportionally as their revenues rose.

It's good to remember the on field successes and the work done to get them. Throughout my childhood, I listened to Bill and Lon on my parents' 70's-era Sears console stereo in the living room while I did my homework. I still remember KSFO often using Madonna's "Borderline" as bumper music between innings. As great as these memories are, the successes did not occur in a vacuum. Incredible amounts of money were spent, from the core of the team to the annual rent-a-slugger and solid veteran 4th starter to having both legends King and Simmons in the booth. It's not only impractical to expect that of Lew Wolff, it's patently unfair.

Every owner does what he can with the cards he's dealt. Wolff signed off on a $79 million payroll in 2007, only to have the team beset with injuries. Hope springs eternal this season, but already we're seeing the injury bug decimate the pitching staff. (Side note: let's not get too excited about Anderson or Cahill yet. For every Big Three, there's also a Generation K - knock on wood.) If the team manages to stay competitive during the first half, it's likely that we'll see a big arm rental along with Matt Holliday stay through the end of the season. If not, guys will be sold off and we'll go back solely to grooming young guys who can hopefully stay healthy. We know that Billy's going to try to get value whenever and wherever he can. The cycle will repeat itself continually until a new stadium is built. It's sobering, but those are the Wolff/Fisher group's - and our - cards.

49ers, Santa Clara close to terms

Not to be left behind, the Yorks and Santa Clara are back pumping up the 49ers stadium plan. While the basic structure of the arrangement is the same, the numbers have changed a bit. The vote was to be either binding or advisory based on the availability of a completed EIR. By pushing the referendum back to June 2010, all EIR/CEQA should be completed by then. The projected subsidy, which has been estimated at anywhere from $109 million to $180 million depending on certain options, has now been trimmed to less than $90 million. The total price tag is projected to be $900 million.

Why wouldn't the 49ers simply foot the bill for the remaining $90 million, since it's only 10% of the budget? True to form, Jed York says that's the NFL's requirement. Ever since the stadium building boom, the NFL has required some level of public investment if the league tapped into its G-3 fund. The league's rationale is that it's the way for a municipality to get skin in the game. Even though G-3 is gone, it will be replaced by something else and apparently, similar rules will be applied.

It's been over 20 years since the last publicly financed, voter approved sports venue in the Bay Area. That venue was San Jose Arena. Since then, all publicly financed stadium initiatives have largely failed. Let's recap:

• 1989: San Francisco's Prop P (China Basin GIants ballpark) lost by 2,000 votes
• 1990: Santa Clara County Giants ballpark measure (1% utility tax) failed
  
• 1992: San Jose Giants ballpark measure (2% utility tax) loses in a landslide
• 1995: Oakland Coliseum renovation to bring back Raiders - done without a vote, notoriously unsuccessful
• 1996: Coliseum Arena renovation for Warriors - probably the most successful to date, high costs to operate venue make it less attractive for non-NBA events compared to HP Pavilion
• 1997: Proposition D passes in SF, providing $100 million towards a new Hunters Point stadium for the 49ers. Development was scaled back, project became stillborn
• 2001: A's efforts to work out a publicly-financed ballpark deal in Santa Clara die due to mistrust of team among City Council members
  

It's hard to fight that kind of track record, isn't it? Regardless, the Niners will forge ahead anyway. I'd like to think that the A's have learned from this, but I wouldn't put it past them to put out a publicly financed ballpark deal in San Jose. If that happens, I'll be first in line at the ballot box to vote it down. Given the state of the economy, I'd do the same if I were a Santa Clara resident come June 2010.

Note: I omitted Pac Bell Park because the public money involved went towards infrastructure, not the stadium proper.

"I claim this city for Mother SF!"

The gloves are out. The line in the sand has been drawn. Honestly, I'm hoping for a Hamilton-Burr duel. Then again, maybe not. Andrew Baggarly reported today that the San Francisco Giants have just purchased a 25% stake in their high-A little brothers, the San Jose Giants.

The Giants will claim one of four seats on the San Jose club's board; if they agree to purchase a controlling interest, they would occupy three of five board seats.

Industry sources pegged the value of San Jose's franchise at $7-10 million, making the Giants' investment worth an estimated $2-3 million.

San Jose officials are not amused with the Johnny-come-lately appearance of the mothership's
"investment."

Reaction from San Jose city leaders was not warm. Mayor Chuck Reed will not participate in Thursday's event at Municipal Stadium, according to an aide.

Councilman Sam Liccardo, a big-league-ballpark booster who has been meeting with community leaders to draft a pitch for the A's, was blunt about the Giants' move, calling the timing "notable."

"The only time I see pitchers from the Giants in San Jose is when they're on a rehab assignment," he said. "And this pitch looks like an attempt to rehabilitate a San Francisco ballclub's image in San Jose.

"Everyone's assumption is that this is a plea to the commissioner, and I don't think it changes anyone's mind in the end."

San Jose is a bit upset because the Muni renovations, which the City and the SJ Giants have been arguing about for years, could've been made more complete had the mothership lended a hand.

This move is not about reinforcing the Giants' major league territorial rights. It is about C-A-S-H. It looks like the baseball equivalent of flipping a house. Look at it this way. When a public company, like recent example Genentech, faces a takeover, the interested buyer (Roche) has to pay a premium over the prevailing market share price. In Genentech's case, the premium was 16%.

I've mentioned this in passing, but I'll say it again: Both the SF and SJ Giants would need to be compensated if the A's moved to San Jose. Obviously the terms would be different for each team. The parent team's $2-3 million investment could yield $1 million or more if they played their cards right, not including the costs associated with moving the team to a smaller market - say the North Bay, for instance. Should they raise their stake to the 55% controlling interest, they'd get even more.

Who'd figure out the compensation? I'm guessing the blue ribbon committee that's sorting out the East Bay situation. Smart move, Neukom. Smart move.

Tight. Really Tight.

In light of the news emanating from San Jose's Redevelopment Agency yesterday, I figured it was time to do another mockup. This time, the ballpark has a ENE orientation, almost the same angle as the Coliseum.

The yellowish area to the left is the PG&E substation parcel. Its irregular shape is caused by the easement that extends north to Cahill and W San Fernando Streets. The easement is undeveloped save for a power transmission pole which connects to the rest of downtown. Both this easement and the small Caltrain-owned parking lot to the west are probably going to be acquired by the city as part of an updated Diridon/Arena Area plan. I don't necessary expect the land to be used for a planned high speed rail terminal. There's more room north of the existing station for that.

View Larger Map
I expect the Cisco Field footprint to be even smaller than what I've posted because my model doesn't employ long cantilevers or columns like the 360 model we saw previously. Going small comes in handy in this case.

Specs are still the same:

• 32,000 seats plus
  
• 1,000 or so standing room
• 40 suites
• 40 minisuites
• Playing field 12 feet below street level
  

The 4 acres south of the ballpark have to be tantalizing as they're a blank slate. Some parking will go there for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if the A's/Sharks/SJRA figure out a way to stick a concert hall down there.

Comment away (please stay on topic).

Opinions to feed your nightmares

For the 4th and hopefully final post today, we have several opinion pieces. Let's start off with Monte Poole's feeling that Oakland fans have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray:

Selig, then, is here to take some of the heat off his buddy. With Uncle Lew playing "bad cop," Bud sees an opportunity to pose as "good cop." He is piecing together the shredded letter and handing it back to Wolff for further consideration.

"Selig's office called us (Monday) to inform us about the committee," Dellums chief of staff David Chai said Tuesday via e-mail. "In addition, Lew reached out to us and would like to set up a meeting."

In other words, what three weeks ago was perceived by Wolff as pointless has, just like that, become a priority. Wow. Is anything in sports more impressive than mighty Bud Selig swinging into action?

The problem, of course, is that this sounds better than it really is. We know where Bud stands. In general, he stands wherever he must to avoid the bright light of accountability. In regards to baseball in Oakland, he has made clear he stands against the Coliseum and against the A's moving to San Jose.

Next, we have something from the Merc's editorial page:

And while the city has a great site in mind — 14 acres near downtown's Diridon Station — the details need more work. An environmental study for a 32,000-seat stadium was done several years ago, but it did not get close public scrutiny because there was no immediate prospect of landing a team. Nor did it take into account the new plans for high-speed rail stopping at Diridon, which will add to the complexity of the area — but also to its appeal for baseball.

Finally, Mark Purdy's a bit tardy in chiming in:

But why would Selig go to all that trouble and ruffle so many feathers if, in the end, no ballpark is built in San Jose? Answer: He wouldn't.

Of course, the flip side is that the movers and shakers of San Jose and the South Bay — not just the politicos, but also business people and corporate sponsors who will pay for luxury boxes and scoreboard ads — are never going to give maximum effort and dollars toward a ballpark unless they are certain that the territorial-rights issue is moot.

In other words, a classic Catch-22. Wolff always has sought a way to unlock that catch and thread the needle — to create a negotiating window where he could promise San Jose that if voters approve a ballpark proposal, the territorial-rights issue wouldn't matter.

All this activity almost has me thinking that next week's media coverage and events will strike an anticlimactic tone in light of what's happened the last two weeks. Fool me once...

Sleep well, children.

Boxer appeals to Selig

Senator Barbara Boxer, who is an Oakland resident, wrote the commish to bolster efforts to keep the A's in Oakland. Here's the full letter for your perusal:

March 31, 2009

Allan H. (Bud) Selig, Commissioner
Major League Baseball
245 Park Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10167

Dear Commissioner Selig:

I appreciate the announcement you made yesterday that you are forming a committee to review the various proposals regarding the future of the Oakland Athletics. As your committee does its work, I urge you to do everything possible to keep the team in Oakland.

As you may know, Oakland has recently gone through some difficult times and families there deserve some good news. As someone who splits her time between Washington, DC, southern California and Oakland’s Jack London Square neighborhood, I have seen first hand that Oakland is teeming with new young families and major developments that present endless possibilities. My children learned to love baseball through the Oakland A’s and our family was so fortunate to develop that common bond. We must give a new generation of families that same chance.

Oakland is witnessing a downtown renaissance, with new residences, restaurants, art galleries and entertainment venues opening weekly. Two new office towers are in development and the Port of Oakland recently announced a private investment of close to $1 billion. Major League Baseball can play a key role in continuing this momentum by working to keep the A’s in Oakland.

Through their rich history and shared experiences, the identities of the City of Oakland and the Athletics are forever linked. For more than 40 years, the people of Oakland have backed the Athletics during good times and bad. In the 1970s, Oakland celebrated the Athletics’ glorious run of three consecutive World Series victories. And, together, the city of Oakland and the Athletics mourned the devastation caused by the Loma Prieta earthquake that took place during the team’s 1989 championship run.

Now that the team has ended its consideration of Fremont as a possible home, the time is right to renew the focus on keeping the Athletics in Oakland.

It is critical that Major League Baseball and the A’s ownership do everything possible to keep the A’s in Oakland and I stand ready to help in any way possible, including attending and setting up meetings for you and the Committee. Please do not hesitate to call me at 202-XXX-XXXX to discuss this issue.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

No threats, no harsh words. It's the right type of letter to start. We'll see what happens beyond that.

Neukom responds

The Merc's Andrew Baggarly had a chance to ask Giants owner William Neukom about the newly formed committee.

MLB spokesperson Rich Levin told the Mercury News that territorial rights would be discussed by the commission, but Neukom said he did not believe Commissioner Bud Selig intends to challenge the Giants’ claim to the Silicon Valley.

“Read the statement,” Neukom said. “It says Major League Baseball wants to help them find a home in their territory. Alameda and Contra Costa county is their territory, full stop. And we support that and hope it’s successful.”

Neukom also believes any talk of territorial rights changing is premature at best.

Asked if he felt he had the support of other owners, Neukom said, “You’re way ahead of the state of play. The question is, and I think it’s very sensible by the commissioner, that they have territorial rights and we have territorial rights. They need a better home. That’s fine, we agree with that, we support them in that, and the commissioner is saying, `Let’s find them a home in their territory.’ We hope they will do that.”

I almost forgot how good at lawyer-speak this guy is.

Perata to run for Oakland Mayor

Chip Johnson has the scoop. Don Perata can't stands it no more, so he's throwing his hat into the ring to become the next mayor of Oakland. From an outsider's perspective, Perata would have to be considered a favorite against Dellums (if he runs again) and anyone else in the City Council.

The fascinating thing about this news is that Oakland could go from a lofty, anti-details mayor to a guy who built the most powerful political machine in the East Bay. Perata's tenure as State Senator has been filled with controversy, as a seemingly endless FBI investigation is well into its fourth year. It looks increasingly like Perata will emerge from the ordeal poorer but politically unscathed.

Would this longtime power broker be able to get a ballpark deal done in Oakland? Absolutely. His organizing and fundraising skills are legendary. Perata's critics would be quick to point out that he was one of the initiators of the deal to bring the Raiders back to Oakland, and that could make anyone leery of supporting a new ballpark plan. Of course, if you're Oakland partisan who would support Perata in any efforts to retain the A's, you're gonna have to wait until 2011 to truly get going on a deal. It was Perata who, during the Jerry Brown administration, said the mayor's support is critical to a ballpark getting built. Then he threw his political weight behind Forest City and the Uptown development was approved.

How deliciously ironic that a man who, through his actions, helped push the A's out of town, yet could end up being the only guy in Oakland who could save them from moving.

Diridon South - No PG&E move required?

Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal's Katherine Conrad has an update on the Diridon South site acquisition process. Apparently redevelopment head Harry Mavrogenes and others within City Hall have been talking about squeezing a ballpark in without either moving or reconfiguring the PG&E substation on its northwest corner.

In the past, I had said that doing this would be unlikely and impractical based on a ballpark's typical footprint and size requirements. However, if turns out to be a change to which the A's are amenable, a much smaller footprint (8-acre) stadium could be placed on the northeast section. This should be doable without altering current plans for Autumn Parkway. The remaining land could be used for parking, administrative offices, and other ballpark-related uses.

Conrad's report mentions a savings of $20 million if the PG&E substation is not acquired. The savings could actually approach $50 million because the costs associated with moving the substation across Park Avenue would not be incurred. The best part is that by moving the parking facility next to the ballpark instead of across the street from it, the land south of Park Avenue could be used for a park. It's a major concession I expect to be made to get some amount of neighborhood buy-in.

Note: In a previous post I mistakenly had marked the AT&T site as "acquired." SJRA has not acquired the site but has an offer out. I don't expect this to be a problem as there are plenty of sites nearby for this type of facility to be relocated.

One more thing: the Merc's John Ryan nailed it.

MLB to create ballpark committee

The commissioner has signed off on the creation of a committee to "thoroughly analyze all of the ballpark proposals that have been made to date, the current situation in Oakland, and the prospects of obtaining a ballpark in any of the communities located in Oakland's territory." Names are named, and the table is being set:

"Lew Wolff and the Oakland ownership group and management have worked very hard to obtain a facility that will allow them to compete into the 21st Century," Commissioner Selig said. "To date they, like the two ownership groups in Oakland before them, have been unsuccessful in those efforts, despite having the significant support of their corporate partner Cisco. The time has come for a thorough analysis of why a stadium deal has not been reached. The A's cannot and will not continue indefinitely in their current situation."

Now, if you really think that this is going to help Oakland, pass the bong please. As benign as the description sounds, this is actually an official "let's delineate all the ways Oakland no longer works" committee. The blockquote above, which comes at the end of the press release, is step #1 in the committee's mission.

Key within this initiative is the appointment of former Giants executive VP Corey Busch to the committee. Busch has been in numerous advising capacities in the years since his Giants tenure, and according to the Chronicle's Susan Slusser, who broke the story, Busch may not exactly be sympathetic to their interests (he left as the Magowan group took over). In the early part of the decade, Busch served as a consultant to MLB's relocation committee (PDF), the one that eventually presided over the complicated Expos-to-DC move. He's no stranger to the process, as he worked almost tirelessly to get the Giants out of the 'Stick and into new digs in San Francisco, Santa Clara, or San Jose. Busch even worked for SF in the 70's and as a consultant to San Jose several years ago as San Jose expressed interest in bringing in a NBA franchise - and the A's - to town.

If Oakland, per its request to Bud Selig, really wants to retain the A's, they're gonna have to get started with new site proposals quickly. I'm certain that the few remaining sites identified in the HOK study aren't going to be deemed sufficient, which will only rubberstamp Lew Wolff's complaints about the City's efforts. We're about two steps from Bob DuPuy flying in to negotiate with whatever City is deemed the future home of the A's.

Lew better have a thick skin

Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful.
- Warren Buffett

I reference the Oracle of Omaha not to bring up his home city again, though I once spent 10 minutes there over a decade ago during a brief stop on Amtrak's California Zephyr line. Rather, it's important to keep the nation's current economic malaise in perspective. Whether the recession ends at the end of this year or next year, it's unlikely that we'll see a shovel in the ground for a ballpark anywhere in the Bay Area by then. Which means that no one has to raise any funds or issue any bonds by then. Which makes all of the media's constant allusions to the wrecked economy moot. The next time I want financial advice on a personal or governmental scale, I won't be posting to a sports columnist's Facebook wall.

Yet that won't stop the critics from hammering away. This weekend, three columns have been devoted to Lew Wolff's various foibles, from Gary Peterson, Ray Ratto, and even Huffington Post contributor Stephen Kaus. I agree that Wolff should simply STFU on much of the San Jose talk until it's time to deal in earnest. After all, that's exactly what Wolff told San Jose, so it certainly wouldn't hurt for him to heed his own advice. It's hard for me to believe that Wolff isn't stung by some of these critiques, but if he's already picked out his media cheering squad, he simply may not care. Still, not everything has to be played through the media. If that's the way he wants to play, he'd be advised to don a suit of armor.

However, these owners, these rich guys all have something you and I have far less of based on the past 9 months: the ability and means to do long-range planning. Even though Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway lost a mindboggling $11.5 billion last year, the man is by no means destitute. Neither are Lew Wolff or John Fisher. They don't have to worry about their 401k accounts dwindling to peanuts while killing their retirement plans. They don't have to worry about their employer, say a newspaper, going bankrupt, thus forcing them to figure out a different way to freeload off the gameday spread at various sporting events. They can look ahead to a couple years from now when the environment is better for big stadium plans. We all think short term because we're forced to, because that's what the circumstances dictate for us. Them? Not so much.

So could we please stop it with the economy crap? No one's building anything right now, or even a year from now. When it's time to talk turkey we can see how the economy and market respond. Until then, it's a red herring.

MLB projects 5-10% attendance drop in '09

A Reuters piece projects that this season, MLB attendance will drop 5-10% from 2008. In the article is some information from Lew Wolff, which indicates how well/poorly the A's may do at the gate:

The A's, who cut ticket prices by an average of 5 percent, are at 87 percent of their targeted budget for season-ticket revenue, where normally they would have finished by now, Wolf (sic) said. The club budgeted for a 9 percent decline in attendance.

Of the paid attendance, there will be additionally high numbers of no-shows due to already prevailing factors or the economy. If the A's are way out of contention at the ASB, the expected fire sale, Holliday and all, will drive attendance down even further.

Get nervous satellite users

The Merc's John Ryan has an update on the DirecTV-CSNCA stalemate: No news is not good gnus. It's not an unfamiliar tale, as illustrated by the previously mentioned KJZZ-DirecTV tussle. Dish Network is also in the same situation. Sadly, the broadcasters and the distributors often have seen fit to turn these situations in long, draw out staring contests, pissing off customers in the process. Earlier this week, Ryan reported that Comcast may stop carrying the NFL Network after May 1. That's not such a big deal during the offseason, but as the young network continues to expand its game offerings, tensions will heat up.

Bring on a la carte programming, I say!