Here is another interview with Wolff.
Purdy: A's Lew Wolff reveals Oakland lease detailsSo now we're getting some clarity and answers about the A's imminent lease extension in Oakland.
And not surprisingly, the proposed 10-year lease contains some "out" clauses based on what the Raiders decide to do about a potential new football stadium on the O.co Coliseum property.
"The big point," said A's owner Lew Wolff in an exclusive interview with this newspaper, "is that we aren't preventing the Raiders from doing anything they wish to do there. If the Raiders have a feasible plan and want to move ahead, we have no intention of standing in the way."
Of course, that stance comes with a catch. If the Raiders and Oakland do indeed agree to construct a football stadium on the Coliseum site -- which is Raiders owner Mark Davis' stated preference -- then the A's would then be permitted to break the 10-year lease.
Specifically, the language stipulates that the A's must be given at least two years' notice of such a Raiders' construction project -- or two-plus years, if the notice occurs in the middle of a baseball season. The A's would then be free to go elsewhere. This timeline would likely mesh with the development process for a new football facility.
Speaking by telephone Tuesday from his Los Angeles office, Wolff made several other points while answering direct questions about the lease situation:
•
The A's ownership is definitely not embracing the "Coliseum City" project championed by many East Bay leaders, at least partially because only 200 of the 800 acres in the plan are now owned or controlled by the city.
•
That said, Wolff is open to discussing a new ballpark proposal in Oakland on the Coliseum property, if civic leaders finally alter their focus away from a proposed downtown Howard Terminal site that he and Major League Baseball have rejected as impractical.
• Meanwhile, the San Jose scenario is not dead. But it is definitely on hold while the city's lawsuit against MLB proceeds through the court system.
• Under the new agreement, the A's payments over the next 10 years the Coliseum's Joint Powers Authority will be roughly 21/2 times more than they have paid to the JPA over the past 10 years. Wolff did not divulge the exact financial figures in the proposal.
However, the terms are likely not onerous enough to preclude a fairly reasonable buyout if the A's do decide to leave the Bay Area or move to San Jose.
Confused by all this? Let's attempt to take things step by step.
Last week, Wolff mentioned in a national television interview that the franchise was perhaps "a couple of weeks" away from signing a 10-year agreement to play at O.co Coliseum.
On Tuesday, Wolff reiterated that belief. Oakland and Alameda County officials have evidently agreed on a tentative basis to the A's terms. The deal must be approved at a June 20 meeting of the JPA, which supervises the Coliseum complex. Assuming that happens, further positive votes would be necessary from Oakland's city council and Alameda County supervisors at unspecified dates this summer.
Wolff believes the politicians will agree to the terms because of the flexibility it gives the JPA in dealing with the Raiders. He credited Alameda County supervisors Nate Miley and Scott Haggerty, former Oakland administrator/current city consultant Fred Blackwell, East Bay attorney Jon Streeter and Oakland city council member Rebecca Kaplan for helping to smooth the waters and negotiate the new lease provisos.
Once the 10-year extension is signed by all parties, Wolff said, he will step back and assess the landscape to see what the A's might do on a long-term basis about a new ballpark.
In a slight policy shift, Wolff puts Oakland and San Jose on equal footing as potential locations, assuming that the A's are ever allowed to pursue a South Bay move that is being blocked by the Giants under MLB's territorial rights clause.
Previously, Wolff has expressed a dominant preference for a downtown San Jose ballpark. In 2009, a panel was formed by baseball commissioner Bud Selig to examine that possibility against any Oakland options. But five years later, the panel has returned no report or recommendation.
"After all this time, I need to have an updated feasibility package in San Jose -- and we don't have the kind of feasibility package we need in Oakland," Wolff said. "If we extend the lease, we'll catch our breath and see what's next. Do we have a feasible program in both cities, either one, or just one?"
One problem: Both Oakland options have serious complications for the A's.
The "Coliseum City" plan favored by Oakland and Alameda County leaders would involve a massive redevelopment project on both sides of the Nimitz Freeway. Theoretically, this would include both new stadiums for the Raiders and A's, paid for by development rights to the rest of the property. The financials are further muddled by still-unpaid civic bonds issued for the Raiders' remodel in 1995. A large Southern California company, Colony Capital, is working with the JPA to assemble the package.
Wolff, however, said he is not interested in allowing another private company to dictate the parameters for a new ballpark. As a developer himself, he hints that he would be interested in looking at the Coliseum site for his own privately financed venture -- depending on how the Raiders' future plays out.
"But under no condition will we become a tenant of anyone in a new facility," Wolff said. "We have to control our own destiny . . . We would be interested in the land that's under city control. Once we've extended our lease, we can examine that."
The other well-publicized Oakland option, a waterfront site at Howard Terminal near Jack London Square, remains a non-starter for Wolff. There are issues with environmental cleanup, railroad tracks and industrial neighbors who don't welcome the Howard Terminal concept.
"It is not feasible," Wolff said. "And all of the flak around it is just people trying to get their names in the paper."
Meanwhile, the San Jose situation is in a deep freeze because of the city's antitrust action against MLB. An appeal hearing is scheduled for August. Wolff was happy to learn that Dave Cortese and Sam Liccardo, both downtown ballpark proponents, emerged from last week's primary election as the two mayoral candidates for November. But as Wolff notes, his status as a baseball owner makes him one of the parties being sued by San Jose, so he has had no discussions with San Jose officials in months.
"I can't do that if there's a lawsuit," Wolff said.
Bottom line:
A final ballpark decision for the A's is still years and years away. But if they receive the lease extension, at least we will know where they will be spending the next three or four of those years. Oakland and Alameda County officials would be silly to turn down that scenario. Stay tuned for the upcoming votes.
www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_25937393/purdy-lew-wolff-reveals-oakland-lease-details