To read the San Francisco Chronicle article click here

A's stadium idea lacks inspiration

EDITORIAL

THE OAKLAND A's have decided that their best hope of staying in the East Bay hinges on the construction of a new ballpark on the vast asphalt parking lot at the Coliseum complex.

The idea is every bit as uninspiring as it sounds.

While the A's have talked about contributing $100 million toward the cost of a new ballpark -- relatively generous by modern pro-sports standards -- the project's ultimate price tag could approach $400 million. In other words, it won't happen without public money.

A public subsidy for a sports franchise -- without any significant residual economic benefit -- is not just a bad investment, it's unfair. It's unfair to the people who don't go to the games, and it's unfair to many of those who do. The A's, who now have a nearly rent-free deal at the Coliseum, try to lure working-class fans with $2 tickets and $1 hot dogs on Wednesdays. A couple can bring two kids to the game and enjoy a hot dog, chips and a soda for just $30 on some special nights.

Anyone who thinks those deals would extend to a new stadium should go to San Francisco's privately financed SBC Park with a couple of hungry kids and watch their wallets shrink.

The most successful of the recent wave of ballparks -- San Francisco, Denver, Baltimore, Phoenix -- have all been key components of an urban neighborhood revitalization. As Oakland City Attorney John Russo put it, they have been strategically placed "in the path of progress" to accelerate it. If planned right, a major-league ballpark can attract development and raise property values.

If anyone thinks a third facility on the Coliseum complex will attract complementary development along I-880, we cite 28 years of evidence to suggest otherwise. Those lumber yards, warehouses, RV rental centers and steel- galvanizing plants gain no discernable synergy from major sporting events, and vice versa.

Regrettably, Oakland had other plans for two sites that held promise for the type of ballpark-neighborhood renaissance that proved a winning combination elsewhere. Mayor Jerry Brown pre-empted a potential ballpark site near City Center by pushing through plans for a development that could bring 1, 000 dwellings, 14,000 square feet of retail and a new city park to a plot between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues. City subsidies of that project are expected to approach $70 million.

Plans for a waterfront park at the old Howard Terminal, just north of Jack London Square, were scuttled when the Port of Oakland recently signed a long-term lease for the storage of shipping containers.

Left with no good options, the A's settled on the Coliseum site -- and the ownership's willingness to pursue the idea was initially hailed by some Oakland fans as a great advancement in the effort to keep the team from looking outside the area for a new home.

"Ideally, the waterfront would be a nice idea ... downtown would be a nice idea ... Monterrey, Mexico, would be a nice idea," said Lew Wolff, the team's vice president of venue development, with a presumed tinge of sarcasm on the south-of-the-border idea. "You can fantasize (about) things, but you have to have a site."

Wolff said the Coliseum site's major attribute, besides the land itself, is access -- especially with a BART stop nearby.

There is no doubting the A's ownership's resolve for a new ballpark. The Coliseum, which once had a certain spartan charm and a sweeping view of the hills, was ruined for baseball when a towering east-side addition ("Mount Davis") was built to accommodate the return of the football Raiders.

It is now, unquestionably, the least aesthetic outdoor baseball stadium in the major leagues.

Even so, the A's have shown that savvy scouting and adroit money management can keep them competitive on the field against teams with taxpayer- built Taj Mahals.

Oakland should be reluctant to once again open its checkbook for anything more on the Coliseum site. Raiders' owner Al Davis would almost surely find a pretext -- lost parking revenue, lost pride, shadows from construction cranes -- to file yet another lawsuit against the city. The new baseball park would fall under the purview of the Joint Powers Authority, a collection of city and county officials who are so petty and divided that they just spent months fighting over a concession contract. Imagine what might happen if they were dealing with a major project.

Oakland might not be in this fix if it had a mayor willing to take a leading role on professional sports. But Mayor Brown, who entered office as the full extent of the long-term financial burden of the Raiders debacle was becoming apparent, has taken a passive role toward keeping the A's. He is openly skeptical about the prospects that a new ballpark could be built without public money in a city that has other pressing priorities. He saw no need to wait for a downtown ballpark plan to materialize before charging ahead with the retail-housing project that assures it never will.

"There has never been a pro forma, never a sheet of paper that will show: This is the way it will work," Brown said of the never-ending talk of a new Oakland ballpark. Still, he took issue with the suggestion that he was ambivalent about whether the city retained its sports franchises.

"I like the A's, I like the team, I like the ownership," Brown said. "I'm just saying we have to be honest. The question is -- where is the other $300 million going to come from?"

There is a reason no one from the public or private sector is offering up the money. The only clear beneficiary of a new baseball-only stadium at the Coliseum site would be the owners of the A's -- and they have made it clear they are only willing to pick up a fraction of the tab.

What prevents the A's from creating their own SB-5 to finanace a new stadium without a cost to taxpayers? Anyone know?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy:
What prevents the A's from creating their own SB-5 to finanace a new stadium without a cost to taxpayers? Anyone know?

---

How would they do that Roy? They would have to take it to the California state legislature, and you'd have every other team in the state screaming against it or wanting the same deal, plus the income tax rate is lower so the revenue would be much lower.

I suppose they could try for it but given the political/financial climate in CA, I think the Oakland area is going to have to fly solo to put this together --- yet another reason why the A's are a prime relo candidate.

Maybe they can call it Schwarzenegger stadium and build support from there?

quote:

---

the project's ultimate price tag could approach $400 million. In other words, it won't happen without public money.
A public subsidy for a sports franchise -- without any significant residual economic benefit -- is not just a bad investment, it's unfair.

---

It appears they are in a pickle.
Lets connect the dots....

1. Bud Selig said the A's need a new stadium or they need to move to another city.
2. As reported recently in the San Francisco Chronicle, Portland is a likely destination for the Oakland A's, should the franchise move from the Bay Area.
3.It is widely perceived teams will wait to relocate until the Expos move is finalized.
3.Portland's ability to receive a relocation team in short order would explain
omitting Portland from the list of finalists for the Expos. Also Vegas was chosen as a "safety net" if the DC/NoVa deal falls thru in spite of the fact Portland has financing and an interim ballpark ready to go.
4.David Kahn said a prospective owner has made contact with Oregon baseball supporters.Something tells me it was an Oakland area code.

Dont expect anything for a year on the Oakland relo sweepstakes, first Expos must be resolved and also I think the A's committed themselves to try to work out a deal on this new proposal which probably means at least a one year effort. I look for the A's and possibly the Twins to start actively looking for suitors near the end of next season.

quote:

---

I look for the A's and possibly the Twins to start actively looking for suitors near the end of next season.

---

Dean, if not the A's or Twins, in your opinion which owner has been in touch with David Kahn?
Obviously one owner is actively looking.

David did not say an EXISTING owner, he merely said an owner which could mean someone interested in buying a team and moving it here, also if it is an existing owner such as the A's or Twins they could be putting out feelers early. I doubt its an existing owner just because both the ownership groups mentioned are local to their respective areas and have tried hard although unsuccesfully to solve their teams situations. A third alternative could be someone like Lew Wolf who I believe has an option to buy the A's so he could fall into either category kinda. The only place it was stated that a current owner spoke to OSC was in the tribune which could be intentional or an error in language.