|
Post by wolfmannick on Mar 1, 2015 20:36:45 GMT -6
^ Thats why teams shouldnt have any veto powers on relocation. Its the reverse Jim Balsille. San Fransico might try and get them to move the As to keep the market to themselves. Causing more problems for the League than its worth.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Mar 1, 2015 23:04:13 GMT -6
I think in normal circumstances teams absolutely should have veto powers. Otherwise franchise values would be totally worthless without territory rights. However this circumstance is a little different. The A's were kind enough to sign away territory rights to San Jose because the Giants were going to build their new park in San Jose but the ballpark vote failed. Walter Hass the A's old owner signed away the territory rights for the good of the game(Candlestick Park sucked and the Giants needed a new home). The Giants never got their park in San Jose but kept the rights anyway. Also in every other 2 team market the market is truly shared with no restrictions. The A's only get something like 2 out of 7 counties the Giants the rest.
Of course you could still make the argument that if Oakland is truly stupid enough the pick the Raiders over the A's the Bay area doesn't deserve to be a 2 team MLB market.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 12, 2015 0:59:50 GMT -6
It looks like Lew Wolff has given given up on San JoseOakland A’s Owner Lew Wolff Says Move To San Jose ‘Not Worth A Nasty Battle’ O akland A’s owner Lew Wolff said a possible move to San Jose is “not worth a nasty battle” over territorial rights with the San Francisco Giants, and is hopeful the city’s new mayor can helpthem get a new stadium built in Oakland.Wolff sounded open to staying in Oakland in an exclusive interview with KPIX 5’s Phil Matier. “Every article I read says I can’t wait to move to San Jose, and that’s not true,” Wolff said. Wolff is hopeful newly elected mayor Libby Schaaf, who he has “a great deal of respect for,” will be able to facilitate a deal for a new stadium. Schaaf has made it clear she wants to keep both the A’s, and the Raiders in Oakland. “I’ve been very clear with Mr. Wolff, and everyone that I am excited about expanding economic vitality in this city, keeping both teams,” Schaaf said. Wolff was confident in the team’s prospects. “ We are going to have an interesting team, and we are going to be here for a lot longer than anyone thinks.”sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/06/oakland-as-owner-lew-wolff-says-move-to-san-jose-not-worth-a-nasty-battle/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 12, 2015 1:00:48 GMT -6
Last bold part was a dig at the San Francisco Giants.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 19, 2015 19:24:09 GMT -6
Warriors expect to break ground on new San Francisco arena in 2016The Warriors are hoping to break ground on their new arena project shortly after the start of 2016 and have the venue completed in July or August 2018, team president Rick Welts said Tuesday.
Welts said there was not a way for the Warriors to have the 18,000-seat arena in San Francisco's Mission Bay neighborhood about a mile from AT&T Park ready by 2017, so they would stick with their original timeline of opening for the 2018-19 season.
The Warriors released renderings of the interior of the arena for the first time as Welts spoke at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce's Public Policy Forum. The drawings show a sunlit grand entrance lobby beside glass windows and also a large video scoreboard over the court. Welts pointed to suites inside the arena as large as 600 square feet that would sit on one ring in the arena instead of on two levels at Oracle Arena, minimizing the distance from seats to the court. "One of our goals is certainly to replicate the amazing environment we have with our fans at Oracle Arena," Welts said. Asked about the possibility of introducing personal seat licenses, Welts said he did not know the answer before noting that the project to build the privately financed arena costs $1 billion. The project includes three levels of below-grade parking, a gatehouse at the main plaza of the site, two office buildings and restaurant and retail spaces. "The idea here is 365 days a year this is going to be a great place to come whether or not there is something going on in the arena or not," Welts said. For more on the Warriors, see the Inside the Warriors blog at www.ibabuzz.com/warriors. Follow Diamond Leung on Twitter at twitter.com/diamond83. www.mercurynews.com/warriors/ci_27914555/warriors-expect-break-ground-new-san-francisco-arena
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 2, 2015 19:34:25 GMT -6
Mariotti: Save the A's, OaklandYou keep staring at the flaws and kinks and oddities until your eyeballs start to burn, as if happening upon a nuclear waste site. Most stadiums have a wow factor in these advanced architectural times. O.co Coliseum has a WTF factor, a hold-the-nose component even when the sewage isn't overflowing. How did a ballpark that once was so cool become so damned cold? Could there be a darker, more depressing entrance to a sports venue than the back of Mount Davis coming off the BART pedestrian bridge? Does Billy Beane really work his shrewd deals in an office across the way ... inside Oracle Arena? Who knew a flashlight was necessary to navigate the corridors to the concession stands? Aren't the green upper-deck tarps sadder than the empty sections ever were? And the configuration of the baseball field? What have they done to desecrate the game? Foul territory is wider than Kim Kardashian's tush. Some seats down the foul line are closer to Jack London Square than home plate. Across the Bay, the Giants proudly conduct $22 fan tours at gleaming AT&T Park — "baseball's perfect address," as the team calls it. The A's have to beg any "interested media" to show off new scoreboards and ribbon boards that other parks had years ago. Aesthetically, the Coliseum is an ode to concrete, concrete and more concrete — and a symbol of what happens when politics and greed ravage a view that used to be quite lovely, back when the Oakland hills rolled high beyond the outfield. This is written not to pick on the place but as a call for help. I happen to like the A's and admire how they've continued to reach postseasons despite limited means. I happen to be a fan of Beane, who has accomplished more with scant budgets than industry detractors — and there are many — who get little done with larger resources. The legacy is "Moneyball," but given the state of the Coliseum, isn't "Major League" really the operative Hollywood theme? Still, don't make the mistake of thinking Lew Wolff is Rachel Phelps. In the movie, Phelps wanted to finish in last place so she could move the franchise out of Cleveland. Wolff just wants a new stadium built in the Bay Area, and this week, after being burned for several years by a lollygagging Bud Selig — who only was his fraternity brother at the University of Wisconsin — the team's co-owner finally is vowing to stop chasing San Jose and other options so he can focus on a future in Oakland. That's right, Wolff is taking the high road this time, unlike his alma mater's basketball coach. " We are going to be here for a lot longer than anyone thinks," he told KPIX (Ch. 5). "Every article I read says I can't wait to move to San Jose, and that's not true. What I can't wait for is a new venue."
The A's are worth saving. If Beane can achieve what he has in the Coliseum, imagine what he and his heir apparent, David Forst, might accomplish in a new baseball-only venue. Such a site would have been perfect in Silicon Valley, where tech money would have transformed the A's into a big-market franchise instead of their current lot as a small-revenue franchise in a big market. Perhaps gaining revenge for some toga party gone awry, Selig didn't help, preferring to protect baseball's antitrust exemption — question to Supreme Court: why is baseball, a fraudulent sport in the Steroids Era, still accorded these sacred advantages? — and allow the Giants to maintain what they claim are their territorial rights. Once Selig appointed one of his infamous blue-ribbon panels to study the situation six years ago, you knew it was going nowhere and that Wolff and A's ownership would have to fend for themselves. But now, with the troubled Raiders considering a return to Southern California, there is legitimate hope the A's will be the last franchise standing in Oakland. Forget the idea of two new stadiums in a Coliseum City complex; the area isn't large enough to accommodate both. And at some point, the new mayor, Libby Schaaf, will come to her senses and realize 81 home baseball dates (plus the playoffs) every year is smarter city business than eight home NFL dates (and no playoffs). In no political scenario should the Raiders, who are abysmal on the field and saddled with a polarizing identity crisis, be favored over the A's, who are pursuing their fourth consecutive postseason berth. Who cares if the Raiders personify the grit of the Black Hole? That is not an image that works anymore, as the NFL knows, and with owner Mark Davis showing no wherewithal to fix lowly results and front-office mismanagement, the Raiders may as well take their eyepatches to Carson.At least Selig's successor, Rob Manfred, is involved. When he visited A's camp in Arizona last month, he said, "When I think about the five longer-term issues that I feel need to be resolved, the stadium situation for the A's is right at the top of that list. I've talked to Lew extensively. I've had conversations with the new mayor, and [I'm] really focused on finding a solution." The problem is that Wolff, without San Jose or Santa Clara or any viable local option, doesn't have leverage upon which to threaten Oakland. He is finished with the San Jose fight, telling the TV station, "It's not worth a nasty battle, in my opinion." As for a city beyond the Bay Area, where? Las Vegas? If the NHL is headed there, might Wolff consider it if he strikes out again in the East Bay? Oakland said it isn't paying a penny for anyone's stadium, understandable with so many issues in the city. Maybe there can be a 80-20 compromise. Or 90-10. Lew? "We are open for a deal to get us a new venue," he repeats. "Whether we build it here or there or Mars." The Mars A's. Damn, if only Rickey Henderson were still around. With the Giants and their aging starting rotation seemingly headed for a tumble, the A's could be the hotter story all season. Sonny Gray nearly stole headlines from Madison Bumgarner and the Champs on Opening Night, taking a no-hitter into the eighth inning and nearly joining Bob Feller as the only pitchers to throw no-nos on the season's first day. This remains a serious operation, despite Beane's radical offseason roster overhaul. He went all-in last summer in acquiring Jon Lester and Jeff Samardzija and trying to win his elusive World Series. When the idea flopped — the offense went flat without Yoenis Cespedes — Beane responded to the heartache with a crazy series of salary dumps that returned the A's to their usual underdog place. We've learned not to doubt him, and, if nothing else, it will be fascinating to see if the latest plan works with classic Beane finds such as Scott Kazmir, Ben Zobrist and Billy Butler, not to mention talented young pitchers and a local kid, Marcus Semien, at shortstop. For every Neiman Marcus, there must be a Target. If the average cost of a Giants ticket has soared to $33.78, the A's are more affordable at $24. They can be here for generations to come, connected to millions by a rapid transit stop, if the Oakland people simply would accept Wolff's olive branch and hammer out a deal with him. This should be done for no other reason than to give Billy Beane an office he deserves, one that isn't inside a basketball arena. Build him a statue while they're at it. www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/mariotti-save-the-as-oakland/Content?oid=2926021
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 6, 2015 14:11:08 GMT -6
Anonymous UCSF donors prepared to go to court to fight Warriors arenaThe out-the-gate attack may center around parking and traffic headaches, but the real aim of the anonymous big-bucks group of UCSF donors that’s going after the proposed Warriors arena at Mission Bay is to kill it entirely — so the land can be saved for a future expansion of the school’s $4 billion hospital. “The mission of this world-class medical center should not be trumped by an entertainment center or the avarice of a few rich people seeking to double the value of the Warriors as a sports franchise,” said former UCSF Senior Vice Chancellor Bruce Spaulding, who was brought on by the newly formed Mission Bay Alliance to put the brakes on planning for the arena. The fight went public last week, but it has been brewing in the back rooms of City Hall and UCSF since April 2014. That’s when the Warriors struck a deal with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff for the rights to 12 acres in Mission Bay after the company dropped its plans to turn the site into a corporate campus. Benioff is a major benefactor of UCSF — his name graces the new UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital at Mission Bay — so it was widely believed that the school was either on board or at least was going to be quiet about having the Warriors as neighbors. As it turns out, however, the Warriors weren’t the only bidders for the property. Reliable sources tell us that UCSF Foundation chairman and billionaire investor Bill Oberndorf and a group of wealthy donors also made an offer for the property in hopes of banking the land for the medical center’s future expansion — but came in $5 million under the Warriors’ $150 million bid. Attempts to reach Oberndorf for comment were unsuccessful. From what we’re told, he and his crew never got a chance to make a counteroffer. Benioff — with encouragement from Mayor Ed Lee, who was scrambling to come up with an alternative to the Warriors’ doomed scheme for an arena on Piers 30-32 — had already locked up the Mission Bay deal with team owners Joe Lacob and Pete Guber. UCSF officials weren’t happy but stayed mum, we’re told, in part because the mayor’s people reminded them that the university has a sizable contract — $149 million in 2014 — to run San Francisco General Hospital. They also pointed out that UCSF gets some pretty healthy tax breaks from the city. The unspoken but received message: Both those deals could change if UCSF made waves over the Warriors deal. City Hall’s reach, however, did not extend to the school’s mega-millionaire donors — including investment banker Sandy Robertson (who recently hosted President Obama at a fundraiser at his San Francisco home), Chiron founder William Rutter and others backing the Mission Bay Alliance.Former Mayor Art Agnos —who has fought other developments along the waterfront but who is supporting the arena at Mission Bay — said the UCSF donors won’t win this one. “The notion that this is going to be land-banked for the future? That train has left the station,” Agnos said. Maybe, but that’s not the way the arena opponents see it. Their first play will likely be to go to court to argue that the 18,000-seat arena — and its 200 planned events a year — will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. In other words, opponents will seek to tie up the planned arena in legal knots for years. As political consultant Jack Davis, in semi-retirement but working for the arena foes, told us: “We are going to litigate, litigate and litigate until the cows come home. On a one to 12 level, I give it a 10 that this is not going to pass.” Another possibility is an anti-arena initiative on the city ballot. But Agnos says both sides can play in this game — and once there’s a full-on campaign, the donors might not look so sympathetic. “That would be a fool’s errand because it would expose the fact that the university pays no taxes to speak of to the city, and now they’re arguing that they want to bank more land for which the Warriors are prepared to pay millions in taxes,” he said. Game on. blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2015/05/04/anonymous-ucsf-donors-court-fight-warriors-arena-mission-bay/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jun 21, 2015 0:21:21 GMT -6
MLB Commissioner Manfred tackles A’s stadium quandaryRob Manfred picked a good time to visit Oakland. Addressing the media just hours after the conclusion of the Warriors’ championship parade through downtown, the MLB commissioner acknowledged the city’s “great sports tradition” and said he remains “firmly committed” to keeping the A’s where they are now. But securing a new stadium venue for the club has been no easy process, Manfred said, and there’s no topic specific to one team that takes up more of his time. Manfred pointed to two central issues that have prevented the A’s from putting shovels in the ground — one being an economic downturn that made large-scale development financially difficult. The second is the “unenviable position” Oakland and Alameda County face in dealing with the Raiders’ and A’s stadium issues simultaneously. “My information is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have two facilities on the current Coliseum site,” Manfred said, indicating that a successful Raiders project could preclude the construction of an adjacent baseball stadium.
Despite that, the league is not pushing the A’s to consider alternate locations. Stadiums are a “peculiarly local” issue, and the league leaves decisions involving them to individual clubs, Manfred said. “The A’s folks have been pretty clear that they believe the Coliseum site is the best site for a baseball stadium in Oakland,” Manfred said. Manfred also said that a new ballpark in San Jose, the oft-espoused alternative to an East Bay location, is off the table at least until litigation regarding the long-standing A’s-Giants territorial rights issue is resolved. www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/MLB-Commissioner-Manfred-tackles-A-s-stadium-6339015.php
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jul 28, 2015 21:49:58 GMT -6
WOLFF SUGGESTS MLB WILL HELP SUBSIDIZE OAKLAND BALLPARKTyler Clippard did better as A’s closer than I expected, possibly faint praise in light of the pitiful nature of the rest of the bullpen. After Clippard was traded to the Mets for potential back-of-the-rotation starter Casey Meisner, Billy Beane was asked about the team’s strategy and philosophy. Inevitably the discussion turned to his thoughts on a future ballpark (h/t BANG’s John Hickey), whenever the hell that’s gonna happen. “It seems the environment maybe is right. It’s not my department… I don’t want to be Pollyannaish. I’m hopeful that something or some progress will be made. It will make it easier to plan from a baseball operations standpoint. If you had a ballpark (in the works), this would probably be the proper approach.” Beane has echoed similar thoughts before, as the A’s were pushing for ballparks in both Fremont and San Jose. It would be completely acceptable for Billy to be gun-shy considering the failures of the past. Yet Beane seemed practically optimistic, despite there being no specific date to break ground, let alone open a new park. Backing that optimism was Wolff, who took the notion of an Oakland ballpark further, admitting that he’s – get this – talking it over with Rob Manfred. Wolff did say that new commissioner Rob Manfred was fully behind the A’s getting a new venue as soon as possible. And the A’s owner said Major League Baseball would likely kick in some money to help the A’s get a stadium done at the Oakland site, public money not being available.
That’s about as big of news as we’ve heard all year on the ballpark front. A private subsidy – that’s what we’re talking about here – is exactly what the A’s will need to make a ballpark in Oakland… wait for it… feasible. Oakland has a hearty albeit small fanbase, and it lacks San Francisco’s or San Jose’s corporate wealth. Money from MLB, which would really be paid by the richer clubs, is the stable revenue stream that the A’s need to stay in Oakland. And since it doesn’t come from Oakland or Alameda taxpayers, it’s politically above board.The easiest path to that money is MLB to continue to keep the A’s on revenue sharing, which I suggested a week ago. While it doesn’t fulfill the goal of getting the A’s off the dole, it solves the Lodge’s problem of figuring out what to do with the A’s without fighting over territorial rights. Enshrined in the current CBA is language specific to the A’s: Beginning with (but not before) their first full season of operation in a new stadium, the Oakland Athletics shall be subject to the same-percentage revenue sharing disqualification that applies to other market-disqualified Clubs in the given Revenue Sharing Year. T hose “market-disqualified Clubs” are the top 15 markets (teams) in MLB. The bottom 15 are fully eligible for revenue sharing. As long as the A’s stay in the Coliseum, they straddle that line between the two. The owners and Bud Selig probably thought that the A’s stadium mess would’ve been resolved by the end of the CBA, that’s why the language is in there. Instead, Selig’s successor, Manfred, and those same owners now have the choice of resolving the A’s problem by allowing the A’s to stay on revenue sharing. It’s a compromise plan to be sure, one the owners always had in their back pocket. Revenue sharing is designed to help the have-nots with player development, not for stadium development. That’s an issue that would have to be worked out internally. I would expect that, as with the current CBA, the A’s place within the revenue sharing recipients pool will have another sunset clause, one that’s perhaps 10 years down the road. There is an alternative to revenue sharing in the form of MLB’s credit facility, which allows up to $100 million per team for reasons outside of normal baseball operations. Eventually that may be the better way to handle the situation. Use of the credit facility would be more like the NFL’s G-3/G-4 program, in that a loan would be taken out against future TV revenues. It’s a smaller subsidy, but if the ballpark costs a reasonable amount ($600 million), it could be enough to cover those years when stadium revenues are running a little dry. If you were looking for a sign that Wolff and John Fisher are serious about building in Oakland, this is it, short of a plan unveiling. It shows that ownership is serious, MLB is serious, and Oakland is the main focus. At the same time, there is still the saga of Coliseum City to deal with. Nate Miley suggested today that nothing was happening as far as alternative proposals until Coliseum City ends, so we can look forward to that at some point, maybe in the coming weeks. Until then, this is progress. newballpark.org/2015/07/28/wolff-suggests-mlb-will-help-subsidize-oakland-ballpark/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Aug 27, 2015 1:04:41 GMT -6
KEPHART PLAYS OUT THE STRINGAfter reading tweets and reactions, and finally listening to Floyd Kephart’s spiel at Lungomare today, I can use one word to describe the whole affair. Perfunctory Unlike Kephart’s 50/50-or-less assessment of the project at this late stage, I can say with greater confidence – 80/20 – that this will be the last time you see Floyd Kephart in Oakland. He said that he’ll be there through the early part of October, but that doesn’t mean he has to come back if all signs point to no on the City’s part. There’s a rendering. It looks modern. Great. The next one’s more interesting. After reading Kephart’s spoken points and digesting them for a bit, I realized that what Kephart presented today, warts and all, was the most honest proposal anyone’s ever given in the four year saga of Coliseum City. Here’s why: It acknowledges that the A’s are likely to stay at the Coliseum for a considerable period, so the Coliseum stays intact. The arena stays as well, because the City wants it even if the Warriors leave. The project area was downsized to 132 acres, no planned phase west of the Nimitz. The funding gap, which according to Kephart would be $300 million, would be funded by a City-sponsored conduit bond. The conduit bond is a tricky thing. This kind of financing has the tax-free, low borrowing cost benefits of regular municipal bonds, but municipalities aren’t on the hook for repayment, as Oakland and Alameda County were with Mt. Davis’s general obligation bonds. Instead, revenues from the development, such as naming rights and certain forms of tax increment on the project area would be used to the tune of $20 million per year. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s similar to the way the 49ers financed their gap through Goldman Sachs. During the pre-Harbaugh era, there was a legitimate question about whether the stadium could be paid for this way. A few playoff runs and highly renewed interest later and the 49ers were able to pull it off. The Raiders, well, they’re not in that position. The makes me wonder how the financing would work if there were revenue shortfalls. Who would be responsible, the Raiders? What if they defaulted? And why would the Raiders or the NFL approve such a plan, given the revenue uncertainty? Kephart said a few other things I found noteworthy. “Purchase of the (Coliseum) land is key to us staying. In the event that the Council says no…we’re not going to do the development.” The land purchase is contingent on the City and County coming to an agreement on Oakland buying out Alameda County’s half. “I’m on my 4th city administrator and 2nd mayor in 10 months. I’m under the 2nd ENA and I haven’t negotiated one significant thing except the ENA.” That would’ve been a drop-the-mic moment if he was so frustrated that he wanted to quit. He wasn’t. But that’s a stunning admission of how little has actually been done. Kephart has been quick to blame the City, County, and team for his failure. Ultimately, it is his failure since he was brought aboard to bring everyone to the table and work out the deal, so this grousing seems like sour grapes. He made one more observation: “I’m not the problem, and I’m not the solution.” Kephart also claimed that it was the City’s responsibility, not his, to get the Raiders, A’s, or Warriors on board. That’s a complete backpedal on his part. Per the ENA, as part of the initial submittal due June 21: (b) Proposed terms and conditions required to obtain a commitment from one or more of the Oakland Raiders, the Oakland Athletics, and/or the Golden State Warriors to the Project with an update on status of negotiations between New City and each team regarding its commitment to participate in the Project; I don’t know when this all changed, but I got a hint of it a few weeks ago when NFL point man Eric Grubman was talking about Oakland on Fred Roggin’s LA radio show. Grubman mentioned that the City hadn’t presented anything to the Raiders, which sounded strange since I too thought that New City was responsible for signing the Raiders. Now it makes sense in terms of process, though no light was shed on why it evolved this way. Exactly how was the City selling this to the Raiders? And wouldn’t those efforts run in conflict with the City’s desire to “open” the process for alternatives? Near the end, Kephart had a sort of kiss-off moment. “While everybody might think that Oakland is the garden spot of the world, we have projects in three different continents and around the country. And I have lots to do.” It’s true. The ponies aren’t going to wait for Floyd to come back to Del Mar, you know. newballpark.org/2015/08/26/kephart-plays-out-the-string/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 15, 2015 16:06:17 GMT -6
Oakland renaissance boosted by tech-industry spilloverLong considered San Francisco’s little brother — or maybe its punk cousin — Oakland has struggled with negative perceptions wrought by crime, protests and a mediocre football team. But from grass-roots efforts to revitalize urban neighborhoods to nearly $2 billion in residential and commercial development forging ahead on the waterfront, Oakland seems to be coming into its own in the Bay Area. For better or worse, the growth has earned Oakland the designation “Brooklyn of the West,” comparing it to the New York borough with its recent renaissance and emergence from Manhattan’s shadow.“ Oakland is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative to San Francisco,” said James Ellis, managing partner of Ellis Partners of San Francisco, which is developing Jack London Square, a $ 400 million mixed-use project on the Oakland Estuary. “People can still have a true urban environment rather than a manufactured one in the suburbs.” The underpinnings for Oakland’s improving fortunes were set last decade through efforts to expand the urban population, and upon the renovation and reopening of the Fox Theater, a long-shuttered landmark, in 2009, observers say. But spillover from San Francisco’s tech boom is providing the latest charge as companies and workers look for affordable space, said Jason Volpe, a senior vice president with Jones Lang LaSalle, the commercial real-estate brokerage firm. Downtown Oakland office landlords are asking around $29 a square foot annually, about half the rent for similar space in San Francisco, according to Jones Lang. And amenities nonexistent a few years ago are attracting millennials looking to set up residence. In turn, that is starting to attract employers.“ There are groups being priced out of San Francisco, and for a lot of reasons — access to transit being one and a central location in the Bay Area being another — Oakland is a natural fit,” said Volpe, who has lived and worked in the Oakland area for the last six years. “The concentration of what I would call highly desirable things to do from a commercial and entertainment standpoint — restaurants, bars, art galleries, live-music venues — has done nothing but increase.” Oakland is drawing office investors as well. This fall, Strada Investment Group of San Francisco made its first foray into Oakland, buying two downtown City Center buildings with Angelo, Gordon & Co. of New York as its partner. Scott Stafford, a Strada principal, cited the tech boom and the City Center BART station as attractions — it’s an eight-minute ride to San Francisco’s business district. Accountants, engineers and others serving the technology industry have been among the first to seek more affordable space in Oakland, he added, and many of their employees already live in the East Bay. Still, he expects the migration to eventually include more tech companies, which have been moving from Silicon Valley to San Francisco to be near young professionals.
“Longer term, we think Oakland is well-positioned for tech,” Stafford said.Volpe and others are quick to point out that while perceptions about Oakland’s bad-boy reputation are changing, it’s still early in the process. And some developments that have been under way for a while still face hurdles because of a sluggish economy. In Jack London Square, filling a 62,000-square-foot market catering to entrepreneurial food operations and shops has been challenging because of a lack of small-business funding, Ellis said. Among other blemishes, demonstrators such as those associated with Occupy Oakland, which clashed with police during its downtown encampment in 2011, continue to hold occasional protests that generate unwanted attention. Crime remains a problem, too. As of mid-November, the number of violent crimes in 2013 was up about 8 percent over the prior year, according to the Oakland Police Department. The department remains understaffed despite added efforts to train and hire more officers. Still, the hurdles have failed to deter those with a vested interest in Oakland. In many neighborhoods, property owners have established community benefit districts, agreeing to pay additional assessments to fund services and improvements that the city cannot afford to address. Two districts in particular, the Downtown Oakland Association and Lake Merritt/Uptown Association, were founded in 2009 to clean up graffiti and enhance the neighborhoods. The adjacent districts straddle Broadway and span roughly 35 square blocks from Eighth Street to 25th Street. Together they have fostered a cluster of art galleries, restaurants, shops and other businesses in hip, walkable neighborhoods. Managed jointly with a combined budget that was about $2 million in 2012, the districts have paid for security, landscaping, solar-powered trash and recycling stations, and a temporary pedestrian plaza, among other services and improvements. By the end of this year, nearly 120 businesses will have moved into the districts over the last five years. Recent additions, such as a law firm, Gordon & Rees, and a graphic designer, Minted.com, represent relocations or expansions from San Francisco. Among other events, Oakland Art Murmur on the first Friday of each month draws thousands of patrons from around the Bay Area via the 19th Street BART station stop, said Deborah Boyer, president of the Lake Merritt/Uptown board. Signature Development Group of Oakland and its development partner, Reynolds & Brown of Concord, Calif., are about to begin work on Brooklyn Basin, a $1.5 billion development on 65 acres on the Oakland Estuary.
Plans call for 3,100 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial space, marinas, and 30 acres of recreational space and parkland.In planning for more than a decade, Brooklyn Basin was delayed by legal challenges and the recession. In June, however, the developers teamed with Zarsion Holdings of Beijing and bought the land for $18 million. Nearby, Ellis Partners in November proposed to build 665 housing units in two towers in Jack London Square. Jack London Square has attracted cutting-edge companies like Sungevity, a lessor of solar-energy panels to households, which has helped absorb more than 90 percent of the development’s office space. While leasing retail space remains tough, Ellis wants to avoid settling for national chains and is comfortable taking the time to get the “right mix” of tenants, a strategy that he has employed throughout the project. “Our focus has always been to avoid making Jack London Square just another mall with the usual suspects for tenants,” he said. “We want to make it a unique, only-in-Oakland experience.” www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/oakland-renaissance-boosted-by-tech-industry-spillover/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Dec 15, 2015 16:30:32 GMT -6
^^^This is why it's not a good idea to let non-business men to own pro sports teams. Do you think any of the "old guard" have ever considered/talked about any of this in the NFL?
Here is how this effects the 3 local sports teams.
Golden State Warriors- They got final approval from San Francisco to move there last week. The Mission Bay Alliance is still going to challenge the move in court. Most people don't think they have a chance. The hospital itself is now in favor of the move. The Warriors are the one Oakland team that draws and has drawn in the past other than when Chris Cohen owned the team. He was one of the worst owners of all time. In Oakland the Warriors are a top 10 team financially it's just that San Francisco is better. Still the Warriors have proven a team can draw in Oakland.
Oakland Raiders- The Raiders have an god awful attendance history since they moved back. Partly because of the Coliseum, partly because of Al Davis being nuts, partly because Oakland sucked/sucks. But there is a ton of upside here unlike non-growing St. Louis. If the NFL wasn't so in love with Dean they would think long and hard about leaving Oakland/Bay area(or San Diego for that matter). Not only is there the spill over from San Francisco, the Bay area in general is growing very fast. There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to support 2 teams. The NFL in a normal circumstance would force Davis to share with the 49ers or help fill the $400M gap.
Oakland A's- The A's and MLB are going to be the big winner in all of this! If Oakland made no improvements what so ever they'd still be a mid-market team with a new park. If Oakland keeps trending like this they are either going to be between mid market to big market or an outright big market team in time. Cha-Ching for MLB $$$$.
Keep in mind too when the NFL goes with Carson MLB is going to get it's first 1 team/only team market in San Diego. This will be another boon for MLB. Padres are a lower 2/3rds market with a decent fan base and great local tv deal. Forbes has them at 19th in franchise value which is about right. San Diego is growing at a good clip. It perfect for MLB because there is no arena in San Diego for a winter sport and having 2 "full time" teams(either NBA or NHL) would be too much considering San Diego has only 5 fortune 1000 companies and getting people inside for a winter sport with that perfect climate would be hard. So again cha-ching $$$$.
If I was MLB not only would I be praying hard everyday for a Carson victory I'd think about giving the NFL a few $$$ and say give this to Stan to help pay for a new St. Louis stadium.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 13, 2016 22:09:40 GMT -6
We now have outright war between the Raiders and A's. Raiders owner agrees to new one-year lease in Oakland, blames A’s again for his stadium problemsPosted on February 12, 2016 by Neil deMause Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis has agreed to a new lease at the Oakland Coliseum for the 2016 season, and for anyone hoping the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum Authority would drive a hard bargain with Davis since he has nowhere else to play this year, nope, that didn’t happen: It’s just a one-year lease with two one-year team options, meaning the Raiders can leave anytime after 2016 that they want to, but can also stay put if they so choose without having to renegotiate. The authority did manage to get an (undisclosed) rent increase, but otherwise public officials pretty much gave up any leverage they had over the team, presumably hoping the resulting warm fuzzies will encourage Davis to build a new stadium with several hundred million dollars he conjures into existence with a wave of his hand. The lease deal, which still needs to be ratified by the Oakland city council and Alameda County board of supervisors, at least accomplished one thing: Davis has stopped complaining about Oakland again, and is now back to blaming his lack of a new stadium on his other favorite nemesis, A’s owner Lew Wolff:
“There’s an elephant in the room, and that’s the Oakland A’s,” Davis said after Thursday’s press conference. “They have to make a commitment to what they want to do.”…
“They signed a 10-year lease while we were negotiating with Oakland officials), and it kind of put somebody right in the middle of things,” Davis said. “There isn’t much you can do. They’ve tied our hands behind our back.
“Now it’s up to the A’s to make a declaration of what they want to do. If they don’t do that, I don’t see how we can make a deal.”Signing a 10-year lease seems a pretty strong commitment, but presumably what Davis means is “Hey, Oakland, make Lew Wolff pick one side of the room and stay there, and we’ll build a stadium on the other side, if there’s room, and if we find money somewhere, maybe.” Realistically, nothing is getting built in Oakland anytime soon, and probably not at all until either Wolff or Davis can force the other out of town, thus clearing the way to control all the Coliseum property themselves. Since it’s far easier to find viable NFL sites than MLB ones — thanks to that whole thing about local cable revenues, and hence local cable market size, not mattering for the NFL — it’s likely to be the Raiders who blink first and end up in San Antonio or Las Vegas or Kankakee or even sharing digs with the Rams in Los Angeles, if San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos succeeds in getting stadium cash out of his city and forgoes the right to move to L.A. Tune back in around November, and in the meantime, try not to stare too hard at the tea leaves, you’ll strain your eyes. www.fieldofschemes.com/2016/02/12/10600/raiders-owner-agrees-to-new-one-year-lease-in-oakland-blames-as-again-for-his-stadium-problems/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 13, 2016 22:14:12 GMT -6
Then this happened WOLFF RESPONDS TO DAVIS COMMENTSThe A’s just put out a press release: Oakland Athletics Owner and Managing Partner Lew Wolff has issued the following statement about recent comments made by Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis: “It is unfortunate Mr. Davis decided to bring the A’s into his discussion about the Raiders’ stadium lease. We respect his right to explore his options in and out of Oakland, including his widely reported consideration of Los Angeles and other markets. The A’s signed a 10-year lease at the Coliseum because we are committed to Oakland. Mr. Davis has said he is fully committed to do a new football stadium in Oakland and there is nothing in our lease that precludes Mr. Davis and the Raiders from building on the Coliseum site. As we stated yesterday, the A’s are aggressively working with the city to evaluate venue sites in Oakland. Our efforts are fully focused on Oakland. Although the Coliseum remains the main focus of our venue efforts, we are also evaluating potential sites throughout Oakland. We are confident our efforts will continue to move forward and we will share our progress throughout the process.” newballpark.org/2016/02/12/wolff-responds-to-davis-comments/#comments
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 13, 2016 22:19:07 GMT -6
|
|