|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 12, 2019 15:41:52 GMT -6
Hillsborough commission hoping to keep abandoned Rays stadium plans in play A motion to officially disband the working group that began courting the team in 2008 went down at Wednesdays meeting.The Tampa Bay Rays showed they were ready to play hardball in December when they walked away from a proposal to build a stadium in Ybor City. But at its first meeting of 2019, the Hillsborough County Commission showed it's still looking for ways to stay in the game. A motion to officially disband the working group set up in 2014 to help bring the team to Tampa lost at Wednesday's meeting after commissioners said that would end any remaining chance of the team moving to a proposed nearly $900 million domed ballpark. "If we ever want to preserve, or if we ever intend on having an opportunity to negotiate with the team again, it's extremely important and sensitive to send a strong signal to not only the Rays but to Major League Baseball that we have board solidarity with respect to this issue,'' said Hillsborough commissioner Ken Hagan, who headed the working group. "It’s a very delicate and sensitive situation that I don’t think is going to be resolved any time soon." The team sent a two-sentence letter to Mayor Rick Kriseman on Dec. 17 formally notifying him that it will not seek to extend the agreement that allowed it to explore a stadium site in Hillsborough County. Weeks later, on Dec. 31, the three-year memorandum of understanding that allowed the team to negotiate for a new ballpark outside of Pinellas officially ended with no deal in place. Now, the only contract the Rays are bound to honor is the one that states the team must play in Tropicana Field until 2027. After that, where the Rays choose to play is as uncertain as ever. Complicating that delicate dance is another detail that emerged in Wednesday's discussion — the sports law attorney that spearheaded negotiations for the county, and is now working for the Tampa Sports Authority, has continued "communicating" with the Rays and the baseball commissioner about the rejected proposal even though the window to do so closed on Dec. 31. "We're not negotiating, just sending them details and additional information about the proposal we had in place, the proposal that's still on the table ... to make sure they understood that when we said we had secured 50 percent of the cost of the stadium from a private investment group we did in fact have that 50 percent worth of investor money," County Administrator Mike Merrill told the Tampa Bay Times. "That deal is still on the table and the attorney, Irwin Raij, indeed has a written proposal and he offered to provide that to the baseball commissioner." Merrill said the team never explained its decision to end stadium negotiations with the county on Dec. 17. All he knows about why the deal fell apart, Merrill said, are the reasons outlined in a "rather unpleasant letter" the county received from Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred that said the deal lacked specifics on the county's plans for financing and timetables for starting construction. The county hasn't seen anything to indicate the Rays will change their minds, Merrill said. But they haven't been discouraged, either. "They acknowledge it. They appreciate that (Raij) provided them more information,'' he said. "Is there a thought they might change their mind? I don’t know. I hope they do." The Rays declined to comment for this story. Hagan said Hillsborough officials will continue to add details to the the Ybor project as requested last week by the MLB commissioner. But Merrill said it’s now up to the Rays. Want more stories like this? Sign up for our Day Starter Newsletter Today's top headlines and information delivered to your inbox every morning. "We spent a lot of time and money working with them on the site and we spent a lot of time and money putting together the framework of a deal that we proposed to them that I brought to the board," Merrill said. "We would not have done that if we weren’t serious." www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/hillsborough-commission-hoping-to-keep-abandoned-rays-stadium-plans-in-play-20190110/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 26, 2019 10:42:46 GMT -6
Study: Oakland Gondola Would Provide Economic Benefits by Kevin Reichard on January 26, 2019 in Future Ballparks, Major-League Baseball Oakland gondola benefits A new Oakland gondola to serve a proposed Oakland Athletics ballpark at Howard Terminal would provide additional visitors and sales tax to the city, according to a study released by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. The A’s have proposed a gondola system to ferry fans to the Howard Terminal site, where the A’s are pushing a new ballpark despite some challenges, including a lack of access. So instead of working on one large solution — say, multilane access to parking ramps — the A’s are pitching some smaller initiatives, such as a gondola system from downtown Oakland. The A’s are not the only MLB team to envision a gondola system at the ballpark. A proposed Portland (OR) ballpark features a gondola system bringing fans to and from a waterfront site, and a gondola system has been proposed to relieve congestion at Dodger Stadium. (Tunnels and gondola are an interesting trend now in alternative ballpark transportation.) A Portland Aerial Tram already serves some 2.1 million users a year, and Disney is building a gondola system at Florida’s Disney World to link parks with farflung resorts. The study from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute says a gondola system would be a reliable transit method not only for the ballpark but for neighboring Jack London Square and downtown Oakland, but it would also generate $403 million in economic impact over 10 years. A gondola system would also provide relief to commuters, including the increased number of workers and residents in the Howard Terminal development and increase BART usage. Add in the impact of $265 million spent to construct the gondola, and the Bay Area Council Economic Institute estimates a gondola system would be a plus for the Oakland economy.The proposed gondola would run from Washington Street and 10th Street in Old Oakland to Washington Street and Water Street in Jack London Square. “The biggest benefit that the gondola will bring to the City of Oakland is more people,” say the report’s authors. “Not only will the initial novelty of the gondola supplement attendance at A’s games with those that may have otherwise not attended, the gondola has the long-term potential to push people from around the region to visit Oakland more often and drive tourists from around the world to add Oakland to their travel itineraries. The economic benefit of these added visitors stems from their spending within the city.” We are currently in the planning stages for the proposed ballpark, with an environmental study expected by the end of the year. The ballpark would be built after a series of events that would include A’s ownership buying the Coliseum site for redevelopment. ballparkdigest.com/2019/01/26/study-oakland-gondola-would-provide-economic-benefits/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 2, 2019 8:32:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 17, 2019 22:49:52 GMT -6
Howard Terminal’s History Could Complicate A’s Ballpark Pitchby Zach Spedden on February 15, 2019 in Major-League Baseball, News Oakland A's Howard Terminal Ballpark rendering Environmental issues could complicate the Oakland A’s Howard Terminal ballpark proposal, as the site’s history of heavy industrial uses may require extensive remediation. Late last year, the A’s unveiled a plan that calls for a new ballpark at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal that will be surrounded by new development. As part of the overall project, the A’s would also redevelop the current Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum site to include include housing, a tech hub, a youth sports complex, retail, and light manufacturing. The A’s are pushing to open the new privately financed ballpark in 2023, but need to complete several steps to make that a reality, including an environmental review of the Howard Terminal site. Along with challenges relating to access, one of the issues that has long been believed to be associated with Howard Terminal is environmental problems resulting from the site’s history of heavy industrial uses. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported a more detailed overview of that history, reviewing regulatory documents that note hazardous and cancer-causing chemicals in the soil and groundwater that have been capped with asphalt. Completion of the environmental review process will provide more specifics on the exact scope of the issues and how they need to be resolved, but the potential for significant remediation is something that the A’s have to consider in the planning process. More from the San Francisco Chronicle: The presence of the toxic material will probably be addressed in the environmental review process that will begin in the coming months. Depending on the concentration and position of the harmful substances, the dirt may have to be removed entirely, altered chemically or further sealed off from human contact, experts say. State regulators will have to sign off on the plans. Now a 50-acre site for container storage and truck parking, the Charles P. Howard Terminal near Jack London Square was previously home to oil tanks, a manufactured gas plant, a briquette plant where compressed charcoal blocks were made, a coal tramway, an asphalt paving plant and a blacksmith…. A’s leaders, who have commissioned design plans for the site, are still negotiating a financial deal with the port, with the goal to open the park in 2023. Team President Dave Kaval said he did not yet know how much the cleanup would cost, but that it would be privately financed along with the rest of the project.Elevated levels of chemicals that remain in the site’s soil and groundwater, such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, are known to cause cancer. Volatile organic compounds, also at the site but in much lower concentrations, have been linked to birth defects and can damage the central nervous system.The scope of the Howard Terminal ballpark project, plus the presence of existing residences and development near the site, could be a consideration as to how any environmental cleanup could affect the process. Along with the ballpark, the overall project would include mixed-use development featuring amenities such as housing and retail. The planning process for the Howard Terminal ballpark has been one expected to include several complexities that the A’s and local officials will have to consider, and the site’s environmental history may weigh heavily in that process. ballparkdigest.com/2019/02/15/howard-terminals-history-could-complicate-as-ballpark-pitch/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 17, 2019 22:55:30 GMT -6
Is St. Pete the new old answer in Rays’ stadium pursuit? MLB commissioner says that’s the focus now; Sternberg is thinking about it as Kriseman waits.What seemed likely given the lack of options after the failed Ybor City bid has become obvious in the Rays’ pursuit of a new stadium, Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred saying Friday that “the focus is on St. Petersburg.”
But striking a deal to build a new home there also will be a complicated and challenging process. There are significant issues beyond covering the hundreds of millions in costs: the stadium location, the viability of remaining in that part of the market, and whether MLB would approve staying given the team’s past struggles. And that’s with the clock ticking in what might be the last chance to keep the team from eventually leaving the Tampa Bay area after its agreement to play at Tropicana Field ends following the 2027 season. “I have to start looking,” principal owner Stuart Sternberg said Friday. “At some point in the next 36 months, I have to explore seriously where the team is going.” The three key leaders in the project, Manfred, Sternberg and St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman, all have different views on what has to happen to make it work. The biggest question, arguably, is whether the Rays, who have ranked at or near the bottom in attendance through their first 21 seasons at the Trop and lack major corporate support, would be interested in staying in St. Petersburg.
Sternberg said Friday after the quarterly ownership meeting that he didn’t yet know because they’d have to be convinced that they would get markedly better support.
And even if the team felt it could work in St. Petersburg, Sternberg said he would have to convince Manfred and the other owners that it was a wise decision.
“It’s possible they would say no,” Sternberg said. “When we were talking about Tampa, there was a good deal of pushback from the owners over the last three to five years.“My sense is, if we were able to work out a deal with St. Petersburg, I would have to show them a real pro forma: What would it look like, how many tickets do we expect to sell, what is the season-ticket base going to look like? Because they’re going to ask how dramatically can it or will it change. I would have to do an extensive presale of everything. … That’s going to be really hard.”Manfred, who spoke positively of the Ybor site, which was noted for being closer to the area population center as well as the Orlando market, said MLB would be open to the team staying in St. Petersburg.
“We are still committed to the region and would like to see a solution,” Manfred told the Tampa Bay Times after the quarterly owners meetings. “We think the Tampa Bay region is a major-league market. … We’re agnostic on where. We really are. Other than in the region. I liked the Tampa site. I think there’s probably places on the St. Pete side that could be completely workable as well.”The most likely option in St. Petersburg, and the one Kriseman favors, is building on the northeast corner of the 86-acre Trop site, which is targeted for a massive multiuse redevelopment, without or with a new stadium, and the Rays getting a share of the proceeds if they stay. Unless what would be an extremely complex deal could be worked out for a downtown waterfront site, such as Al Lang Stadium or Albert Whitted Airport. The Derby Lane site and others have already been dismissed for various reasons. Even how negotiations for a new St. Petersburg stadium could start sound convoluted. Though Kriseman remained confident through the talks in Tampa that the Rays would come back to St. Petersburg, he said he won’t make the first move, insisting Sternberg has to approach him and say they want to stay. “I’m not going to negotiate against myself,” Kriseman said. “I’ve made it clear if they want to talk about it, they have to tell me they’re interested.” The Rays say they won’t know for a while, maybe a few months, though they sound at least intrigued by the possibility. “I would expect if we are interested it would be a collaborative effort to try to get something done,” Sternberg said Friday. “The land is there. The will is there. There’s money that’s available; (Pinellas) County has been supportive up to this point. We’ve got real good solid people who are up for progress. They want to develop the land. They want baseball. They see the value of developing the land and the value of baseball.” But not everyone has given up on the possibility of the team moving across the bay. Even in saying St. Petersburg was the focus, Manfred mentioned the possibility of reopening talks in Tampa. Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan said he remains optimistic that the team will end up there, as did Tampa Bay Rays 2020 business group leader Ron Christaldi. But doing so would require a new agreement with St. Petersburg to allow for such negotiations. And that sounds unlikely. Sternberg said he has no plans to ask for another window (which would require financial compensation), but suggested the Tampa leaders could if they were ready to make a better deal. Either way, Kriseman said it was unlikely he’d agree anyway, noting the Rays and Tampa officials just had three years to work something out and failed. “I think that window is closed,” he said. “They’d have to put a pretty sweet deal on the table to entice me to even talk about it.” Hagan called that “an extremely short-sighted position” and claimed Kriseman would force the team to relocate. “Taking that hardline stance you’re essentially forcing their hands to stay at Tropicana Field,” he said. “And if you do that, by 2028 they’re going to leave the region. They’re not going to stay in St. Pete.” Manfred said he was “disappointed” the Rays and Tampa leaders couldn’t work out the deal for a $900-million stadium on the Ybor site by the Dec. 31 expiration of the “free look” agreement. He sent a strongly worded letter to Hillsborough officials pointing out how their offer was incomplete in advance of the Rays announcing in December that they were ending talks. “There was a lot of time and resources devoted to getting a deal done on that side,” Manfred said. “I very reluctantly weighed in on the topic because I felt it was important for people to understand why it came up short and where it came up short.” www.tampabay.com/sports/2019/02/09/is-st-pete-the-new-old-answer-in-rays-stadium-pursuit/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 17, 2019 22:59:49 GMT -6
^^^^YUCK!!!!!!!!!! This is something the NHL would totally do. This plan is basically relying off TV viewship(which is good in Tampa) and the sale of the land to make up for no fans going to games. This is totally minor league. They should stay at the Trop until something comes up in another market or you can get to downtown Tampa. There is no way the other owners should allow this unless MLB wants to become the new NHL.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 19, 2019 17:09:02 GMT -6
Groups Opposing A’s Howard Terminal Ballpark Planby Zach Spedden on February 19, 2019 in Major-League Baseball, News Oakland-As-Howard-Terminal-Ballpark-2 Groups are expressing various grievances over a proposed Oakland A’s ballpark at Howard Terminal, pointing to concerns such as traffic and the facility’s impact on bar pilots. Late last year, the A’s unveiled a plan that calls for a new ballpark at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal that will be surrounded by new development. The organization is hoping to open the new privately financed ballpark in time for the 2023 season, but must complete several steps before moving forward with the project, including an environmental review of the site. Amidst concerns about an effort to get state lawmakers to push a bill that would fast track the project’s permitting process, several groups are voicing their opposition to a ballpark at Howard Terminal. Among them is Save the Bay–which fears that the lack of transit accessibility will increase vehicular traffic–and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, an entity representing several Port of Oakland tenants that is concerned that adjacent development will complicate the ability of trucks to get in and out of the Port and ultimately limit future industrial uses. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Bar Pilots is expressing concerns that lighting from the ballpark will adversely affect the vision of pilots and potentially contribute to collisions with kayaks. The A’s have emphasized that they are not turning to state lawmakers to fast track the permitting process, and that they are working to address the concerns. More from the San Francisco Chronicle: “Navigating a large container ship through such congested waters would substantially increase the risk that a small vessel or kayak will be damaged or sunk … resulting in personal injury or fatalities, or cause the ship or tugs to go aground or strike a pier in evasive maneuvers, resulting in an oil spill,” [San Francisco Bar Pilots President Joseph] Long contended in the Jan. 14 letter to the BCDC. The opposition appears to be mobilizing because of a concern that there is a behind-the-scenes effort to get state lawmakers to pass legislation to fast-track the permitting process for the stadium. “Our concern is that the A’s and the citizens of Oakland are creating an approval process that may be legally vulnerable,” Lewis said. A’s President Dave Kaval said there were no plans to ask Sacramento to shortcut the process — if anything the team is pushing to include “environmental justice” issues. As for the questions about traffic, lights and blinding the bar pilots, Kaval said the team was looking at “everything from the traffic to the ballpark’s lights to make sure the stadium is designed and built to take into consideration all of the stakeholders’ uses.” The A’s have been searching for years to replace the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. A previous proposal for a new Oakland ballpark near Laney College stalled in late 2017 amid neighborhood opposition, so the team has been hoping that their latest proposal–which also includes a redevelopment of the Coliseum site–can clear the necessary hurdles. Whether some of the skepticism surrounding Howard Terminal can be addressed remains to be seen, but it will be an area to follow as the A’s continue their push for a new ballpark at the site. ballparkdigest.com/2019/02/19/groups-opposing-as-howard-terminal-ballpark-plan/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 19, 2019 17:15:40 GMT -6
^^^I wonder if the San Francisco Giants are behind any of this. If they are they should have to pay into the current revenue sharing system like they currently are and MLB should also make them pay the difference in revenue to the A's that a new park would make vs. the Coliseum each year. Basically they should be forced to take care of their little brother if they want to keep him down.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 26, 2019 7:40:34 GMT -6
Updated renderings A comparison to the 1st design to now New=left pic Old=right pic Oakland Fan Pledge @fanpledge 18h18 hours ago More Oakland Fan Pledge Retweeted A's Fan by Design The design looks soooo much better without the hobbit holes and ski ramping roof. Both were eye catching in the wrong way and the new version is a much cleaner look.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Feb 27, 2019 4:02:50 GMT -6
A new pic posted above, bigger pics!
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Mar 17, 2019 14:42:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Apr 15, 2019 3:02:45 GMT -6
Updated rendering with the cranes now added from the outside view
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 7, 2019 16:07:44 GMT -6
A’s Nearing Vote on Tentative Term Sheet for Howard Terminalby Zach Spedden on May 6, 2019 in Major-League Baseball, News New Howard Terminal rendering (1) Port of Oakland officials will vote next week on a tentative term sheet with the Oakland A’s for a proposed Howard Terminal ballpark, a decision that could advance the ongoing planning process. The A’s are working on their proposal for a new ballpark at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal. Under those plans, the waterfront ballpark would be built as an anchor for new development in the surrounding area that includes housing, while the A’s would also lead a redevelopment of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum site. In what will be a key vote, the Oakland Port Commission is expected to decide on May 13 whether to approve a tentative term sheet with the A’s. Approval of the tentative term sheet would not finalize the project by any means–an environmental impact report still has to be completed, additional approvals at the local and state levels would remain, and the A’s and the port would have to finalize a land lease–but it would spell out some of the plans for the proposed ballpark and development. That includes a design that is intended to not interfere with existing or future port uses, as the potential for the project to hamper port operations has been a major concern in some circles. More from the San Francisco Chronicle: “We don’t exactly know what the final plan is yet, but this pretty much lays out what we are planning,” A’s President Dave Kaval said. “The biggest thing we’ve changed is that we have created a very large area to allow for the expansion of the maritime turning basin to make sure that our project doesn’t interfere in any way with the existing or future operations of the Port of Oakland,” Kaval said. The new stadium would be built on the Oakland Estuary adjacent to Jack London Square and sit on the edge of the inner harbor’s turnaround basin, where ships — some as long as three football fields — reverse direction in a 1,500-foot-wide space. Bar pilots had expressed concerns that the ballpark’s lights and fans in boats could be safety hazards. The pilots were also worried the development — which includes retail and housing as well as the stadium — would limit the future expansion of the basin to accommodate ever-bigger cargo ships. The A’s have cited 2023 as a targeted opening date for the Howard Terminal ballpark, and the organization is hoping to begin construction next year. Approval of the tentative term sheet next week would be an early step in that direction, but plenty of work will remain in order to finalize any plans for the site. ballparkdigest.com/2019/05/06/as-nearing-vote-on-tentative-term-sheet-for-howard-terminal/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 14, 2019 0:25:49 GMT -6
Port of Oakland clears the way for A’s to pursue ballpark plan at Howard Terminal The A’s will have four years to get land-use approvals in order to lease the 50-acre Howard TerminalDespite protests from longshoremen and maritime business representatives, the Port of Oakland on Monday cleared the bases for the Oakland Athletics to possibly build a 35,000-seat ballpark on its Howard Terminal site along the estuary. T he port’s board of commissioners unanimously approved an exclusive negotiating term sheet that would give the A’s four years to obtain land use permits, conduct an environmental review and do other preparatory work needed to eventually lease the 50-acre Howard Terminal.
The term sheet lays the framework for an agreement that would allow the A’s to lease the port property for about $3.8 million in each of the first 20 years of the 66-year lease, with the rent to increase after the first couple of decades.Before voting, port commissioners listened to about two hours of public testimony, much of it from people saying they oppose a ballpark in that location because it would drive existing port businesses away and result in a loss of longshoreman jobs. But board president Cestra “Ces” Butner told the crowd he’s confident the port can accommodate both a ballpark and a growing maritime industry. “You can do two things at the same time. You can walk and chew gum at the same time, and we can build a stadium and protect our maritime industry,” Butner said. “We refuse to accept the notion that it’s an either-or proposition.” The commissioners added a last-minute amendment to the term sheet, calling on the A’s and the seaport businesses to join forces and negotiate standards that would ensure the project doesn’t hurt or otherwise interfere with port operations. However, the promises of A’s officials and port commissioners didn’t allay the fears of longshoremen who said they don’t think a port and ballpark could co-exist. “The industry is going to go, one by one, and the truckers will not be able to get in and out,” said International Longshore and Warehouse Union member Aaron Wright, “You cannot mix baseball game traffic with semi-trucks. It can’t happen.” Andy Garcia, chairman of the board at container transporter GSC Logistics Inc., said putting a ballpark in the middle of a busy port is like putting a “playground in the middle of an assembly line.” Several A’s fans and Jack London Square residents spoke in support of the ballpark proposal, saying it’s important to keep a sports team in Oakland after both the Warriors and the Raiders leave. Port of Oakland spokesman Mike Zampa said the annual rent amount was reached in private negotiations. He stressed that the term sheet is nonbinding, and port commissioners could still back out of the deal after the four years are up. The A’s will have 10 days to pay the port $100,000 to cover staff expenses under the agreement, $150,000 after the first year, $200,000 after two years and $250,000 after three years. Mike Jacob, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, a trade group representing marine terminals and vessel operators, said he believes the A’s are getting special treatment under the proposed deal, noting that other companies who lease terminals have to pay more per acre. Butner, in an interview after the meeting, said that Howard Terminal is not fit to be a container terminal and is thus worth less per acre. A’s president Dave Kaval said after the meeting that the A’s have tweaked their plan to accommodate other port businesses and may tweak it more in the coming years. “We’ve made many adjustments to the plan, including the maritime reservation area, the transportation plan and also the buffer zone to make sure that we can have a thriving port and a beautiful ballpark,” Kaval said. He called the port commission’s vote a “critical step as we move forward with our new privately financed ballpark here at the waterfront.” The A’s have agreed to pay the cost of cleaning up the contaminated site, which could carry a high price tag. Over the years, the site has been occupied by a gas plant, a charcoal plant and oil tanks. Chemicals remain in the soil and groundwater, including some known to cause cancer . The A’s plan to construct the ballpark by 2023, as well as triangular buildings around it that would either house apartments, condos or hotels. www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/05/13/port-of-oakland-clears-the-way-for-as-to-pursue-ballpark-plan-at-howard-terminal-begin/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 14, 2019 2:51:57 GMT -6
A’s finally make tangible progress on a new ballpark 3 The Port of Oakland approved a long term lease to the A’s of the Howard Terminal property. It’s not shovels in the ground (sigh) but it is the farthest an A’s ballpark plan has ever gone. In the latest of a series of new ballpark victories, the Port of Oakland approved a long-term lease and an exclusive negotiating agreement on a purchase of a portion of the Howard Terminal property (the zone by Jack London Square that the A’s have identified as their new ballpark site). According to A’s President Dave Kaval, part of the Howard Terminal ballpark property must be leased because of California law regarding waterfront land, however a large portion of the property can be purchased and the team plans to do that. The A’s will pay $3.8 million/year for the first 20 years of the lease. In the meantime they will also be making annual payments to preserve their exclusive right to negotiate a purchase. The arrangement benefits both sides, as environmental reports may affect the purchase price significantly. With that big wild card still out there, the A’s (quite literally) buying time from the Port makes the most sense.The lease was expected to be approved but with the dozens of disappointments surrounding the multi-decade ballpark quest, nothing is taken for granted. On Monday to support the vote, the A’s held a rally at Jack London Square outside the Port meeting. A band played, free food and drinks were provided, and Dallas Braden showed up (of course he did). The ubiquitous Kaval was on hand to celebrate with the fans. The rally reportedly drew about 1,000 supporters, with a particularly strong show of support from the Teamsters Union. A couple of other unions held a smaller counter-rally (more like a press conference) opposing it out of concern for preservation of the Port’s thriving shipping business. In the end the Port unanimously approved leasing the land to the A’s. It may not sound like a whole lot, but the A’s actually have a lease on a ballpark property. They’ve never gone past the “idea” stage, really, so I’ll count this as a victory. They’ve now committed to paying the Port almost $80 million, which is definitely more legit than ever. This tangible victory comes after a series of political wins that are laying the groundwork for the new stadium. This process seems night-and-day different from the embarrassing Laney College debacle, in which Kaval’s presentation was high on confidence but revealed to be almost completely lacking in actual preparation, politicking, and the behind-the-scenes grunt work needed to move along a project of this size in California. (Who knew you needed the people that control the land to agree to build a park there?) With Howard Terminal, there were many more votes necessary given both the waterfront development and the use of Port lands, however every vote was expected, and most passed unanimously. To wit:
July 30, 2018: The California legislature overwhelmingly approved a limited challenge period for environmental review of the Howard Terminal ballpark. The environmental review must still be thoroughly completed, but once completed, there is a limited period of time for lawsuits to be resolved. Without the legislative exception, ballpark opponents would have potentially years to delay the project through lawsuits. Instead, any issues will be forced to the fore at the outset. April 23, 2019: Alameda County votes unanimously to sell its share of the Oakland Coliseum land to the A’s. Although the A’s plan to build the park at Howard Terminal, they aim to use revenue from developing the Coliseum property to subsidize what promises to be an insanely expensive ballpark (and gondola, public parkland, etc.). April 24, 2019: Four bills are voted unanimously out of committee at the state level; combined, the bills will help pave the way for local control of the ballpark process and streamline the financing process for necessary infrastructure improvements at Howard Terminal (one of them has already passed 36-0 in the state senate and is moving to the state assembly). May 9, 2019: Labor Unions representing 135,000 workers announce their support of the Howard Terminal ballpark. May 13, 2019: The Port of Oakland votes 7-0 to lease Howard Terminal to the A’s.The A’s are still pretty far from shovels in the ground, however. The required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not yet completed, and when it is, it will be subject to heavy scrutiny and potential legal challenges. At the Coliseum site, the A’s still have to negotiate with the City of Oakland who owns the other share of that land, and if that deal falls through it’s unclear how the A’s can finance the potential toxic cleanup needed at the Port (let alone the gondola!). There are still votes remaining at the state level. And I’m sure the city, neighboring Schnitzer Steel, the Port, dockworkers unions, and countless others will want to weigh in at every step of the process. The sheer number of votes and committees and stakeholders illustrates the challenge in taking on a massive development on California waterfront property. Literally every team has had it easier. For example, the next new park to open up is the new Globe Life Field in Arlington. I’m going to assume that the Texas Rangers didn’t have to clear 80,000 hurdles in deciding to build a brand new ballpark. My guess is the only question was whether there was oil under the stadium site. (“No? Good to go!”). From the looks of it, it will be pretty much devoid of charm, built in a parking lot next to the old stadium, which itself is situated on a nondescript parcel of land (but hey, it will have that all-important roof). And taxpayers are subsidizing it to the tune of $600 million. However, taking a silver lining look at the quarter-century-long ballpark saga, I think the challenges, restrictions, and geography will force the A’s into a creative, unique park, one that has the potential to wake up the Oakland waterfront and tie Jack London Square to downtown. In that sense, if the winding ballpark path leads us improbably to a wholly unique jewel of a ballpark in one of the most picturesque settings imaginable, it’ll be a win. But, as of now, it’s still a dream. A dream that became slightly more realistic this week. www.athleticsnation.com/2019/5/14/18622730/oakland-as-finally-make-tangible-progress-on-a-new-ballpark-howard-terminal
|
|