Jerry Brown (yes, that Jerry Brown) has been mum on support for a new stadium in Oakland. The reason?... You know it... funding. - TBGR

Oakland's Mayor Doesn't talk about a new stadium for the A's

Mayor Jerry Brown's soaring profile and stream-of-consciousness stump speeches about Oakland's bright future are among the city's most coveted political assets. That and this report from The Contra Costa Times' Guy Ashley
But when it comes to an issue now whirring through Oakland's collective consciousness -- whether to build a downtown ballpark to spark the local economy and keep the A's from relocating -- Brown has done an uncharacteristic disappearing act.

The conspicuous silence from the mayor, whose support is deemed essential if the project is to fly, has some stadium supporters on edge.

"If I'm Jerry Brown and I'm pushing to revitalize the downtown, this project is a natural," said Chris Dobbins, co-founder of the Green Stampede, an A's fan group lobbying heavily for a new stadium.

"I can't understand why he's not pushing it. Where's that famous creative vision?"

Repeated inquiries to City Hall to gauge Brown's views of the stadium proposal have been rebuffed by his office staff.

"The mayor's position is that it's too early to talk about this," said Erica Harrold, a spokeswoman. "Like many people, Jerry's stuck on one simple question: How are you going to pay for a new stadium?

"Until he sees a financing plan, there's really nothing to take a position on."

Having narrowly escaped losing the A's last summer, a group of Oakland officials led by City Manager Robert Bobb has launched a detailed review of options for building a ballpark that would tie the team to the city for decades to come.

The city is now focusing on two sites near Oakland's long-struggling downtown -- a waterfront parcel next to Jack London Square, and 13 acres near Telegraph Avenue and 20th Street -- as potential stadium sites.

The pro-stadium constituency at City Hall is enthusiastic about a ballpark's potential for catalyzing economic renewal. But red flags flutter when one ponders paying for a stadium, which would cost an estimated $352 million to $368 million.

Oakland and Alameda County are both struggling through financial doldrums that will force them to deal with multimillion-dollar deficits in the coming fiscal year.

If tough financial times aren't enough to scare local politicians away, the area's dismal history with Oakland sports franchises has several local leaders already shutting the door on the stadium idea.

"If we can find the king of the world willing to pay for a new stadium, then I'm interested," said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele. "But we just cannot put any more public dollars into any more stadiums."

Steele took part in the deal to return the Raiders to Oakland in 1995, which continues to cost Oakland and Alameda County about $20 million annually.

Bobb says Brown, too, is keeping past sports-deal debacles in mind.

"He's taking a very cautious approach and I respect that," Bobb said. "He doesn't want to be involved in another sports fiasco."

Brown's reticence on the stadium issue comes as the city enters a crucial stage in its explorations. Bobb and City Councilman Richard Spees, two of the guiding forces in the ballpark effort, are scheduled to lead city officials on a tour of other Major League cities later this month to explore how baseball parks have contributed to economic growth and quality of life.

The city-sponsored trip to Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Denver, Seattle and Pittsburgh, Pa., will be the last chance for Oakland's decisionmakers to inform themselves before they are asked by Bobb whether the city should press forward on the ballpark.

Brown hasn't committed to the trip, although Bobb said Thursday he's still trying to convince the mayor to join for at least a couple of days.

If he declines, Brown would not be the only city official who turns down the trip. Three City Council members -- Nancy Nadel, Danny Wan and Ignacio De La Fuente -- said last week that they won't be going. All three say they're skeptical about the stadium deal, especially since the A's have yet to make any commitment to Oakland or its stadium project.

Opinions vary on how one should read Brown's failure to commit to the ballpark tour.

Spees said he thinks Brown is open-minded and ready to be convinced, although the councilman admitted building a stadium will require some public investment. Exactly how much won't be known at least until negotiations are launched with the A's, Spees said.

Nadel and De La Fuente said they are opposed to spending public money on a stadium. In the end, Brown will balk at the prospect, too, according to De La Fuente.

"He's silent because he's against it," De La Fuente said. "He doesn't want to put any money into a stadium."

Nadel, whose district includes the Telegraph and 20th Street site, said Brown told her he doesn't want a stadium there, on the site that won top billing in a study. "He would rather see housing up there," Nadel said.

Harrold, Brown's aide, said the mayor's reluctance to take the ballpark tour shouldn't be misread. The trip, she said, simply clashes with a vacation he's been planning.

But unlike Bobb and Spees, both of whom see the prospect of bringing 3 million baseball fans into the downtown as a potential boon, Brown is developing a different view, Harrold said.

She said his views on the matter have been influenced of late by studies, including one by Stanford University economics professor Roger Noll, which assert that the economic effects new ballparks have on inner cities are overblown.

Harrold said Brown's views also may differ in a fundamental way from those of Bobb, Spees and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, all of whom are A's fans passionate about keeping the team in Oakland.

"Jerry's interested in other things," she said. "He's not the type of guy who reads the sports pages every morning." That and this report from The Contra Costa Times' Guy Ashley

A man has to have goals- for a day, for a lifetime- that was mine, to have people say, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived."
- Ted Williams

That may be the reason for Brown's continued silence. BTW, the Marlins attendance continues to tank.

Numbers don't lie. People do.
Beware of the Silver & Black attack

Another reason for Brown being silent could be the pending Raider lawsuit vs. Oakland and Alameda County. The Raiders contend they were promised by the city and county that they would have sellout crowds, but have had very few sellouts since their return. The Raiders are asking for $1.1 billion in damages. Jury selection is scheduled for July. Until this is decided one way or the other, the hands of the city/county are tied as far as ballpark funding, if their is any hope of funding at all.

What idiot owner (other than Al Davis) would buy into THAT kind of promise? You can't FORCE people to attend games, for crying out loud! In San Diego, the Chargers were told that the city would cover the cost of empty seats when they expanded their stadium to 66,000 or so, but they certainly weren't promised sellouts. Lured back to the city under "false pretenses". Gimme a break and help that man find some reality in his life!

Yeah, it's hard to believe the Oakland/Alameda people guaranteed sellouts, but then again those same people have done some incredibly stupid things before regarding the Coliseum, A's, Raiders, etc. And, Al Davis has a pretty good track record regarding lawsuits.

What does Davis want? He wants to go back to LA, and winning this lawsuit, along with a huge award for damages, would allow him to move the Raiders back down south - remember, he still regards LA as his territory - and build them a new stadium. So what if Oakland/Alameda is left destitute? Who cares if the A's move? What Al Davis wants, Al Davis gets, taxpayer be d@mned.

"A Raider is a pirate . . ."

quote:

---

Originally posted by daddabom:
Yeah, it's hard to believe the Oakland/Alameda people guaranteed sellouts, but then again those same people have done some incredibly stupid things before regarding the Coliseum, A's, Raiders, etc. And, Al Davis has a pretty good track record regarding lawsuits.

What does Davis want? He wants to go back to LA, and winning this lawsuit, along with a huge award for damages, would allow him to move the Raiders back down south - remember, he still regards LA as his territory - and build them a new stadium. So what if Oakland/Alameda is left destitute? Who cares if the A's move? What Al Davis wants, Al Davis gets, taxpayer be d@mned.

_"A Raider is a pirate . . ."_

---

Davis is all about $$$'s. But then again, he's always been about that. Does he want back in LA? You bet. I liked having the Raiders in LA, and was very angry with Davis when he moved them back to Oakland, for a free handout basically. But I'll tell you one thing for sure: the people in Oakland have better supported the Raiders than LA ever did. There's very few empty seats at Oakland-Alameda for Raider games, whereas I could find several at LA Memorial Coliseum. Davis should take a hint, but iike you said, he really doesn't give a rip.

Numbers don't lie. People do.
Beware of the Silver & Black attack