|
Post by mikecubs on May 18, 2019 7:34:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 18, 2019 7:39:22 GMT -6
video
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 22, 2019 7:35:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 22, 2019 7:39:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on May 22, 2019 7:41:45 GMT -6
The plan now is for the A's park to have only 27,000 seats with 10,000 standing room seats. Most of the standing room will be on the grass slope.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Sept 12, 2019 8:27:33 GMT -6
New A’s stadium at Oakland’s Howard Terminal clears Senate, moves closer to reality
Bonta’s bill wins unanimous vote
The plan to move the Oakland Athletics from the beloved but battered Coliseum into a new Bjarke Ingels Group-designed park at the Howard Terminal, right on the waterfront north of Jack London Square, cleared a major hurdle Monday night. Assemblyman Rob Bonta’s (D-Oakland) AB 1191 passed the Senate 34-0. The bill would help facilitate the project by authorizing the city of Oakland “to acquire reclaimed tidelands around Howard Terminal by trading other properties to the State Lands Commission,” according to Press Democrat.
The bill now must go before Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
After the bill passed the Assembly in May, Bonta said, “This project is a win for Oakland and the East Bay. It will create strong union jobs that provide good wages and benefits.” He went on to claim that the ballpark will help alleviate the housing crisis: “It will create badly-needed affordable housing and will keep the A’s rooted in Oakland for years to come.” A figure denoting exactly how much housing might accompany the ballpark and retail mixed-use has yet to be determined. The 34,000-seat stadium received a tepid welcome when plans were revealed in November 2018. The first iteration, that of a square “jewel box” design, received mixed reviews from critics and fans. In February, a second draft, aimed at appeasing naysayers, showed a smoother and more circular stadium. The East Bay baseball franchise’s ambitious plan would dismantle the current A’s home, a Brutalist behemoth crumbling due to the ravages of time (not to mention the ill-advised 1995 addition of Mount Davis). The A’s plan to relocate to the Howard Terminal along the waterfront would also transform its current home into a tech and housing hub, keeping the Oracle Arena in place, and re conceive the Oakland Coliseum into a low-rise sports park and amphitheater. This is, of course, all tentative as of now. While the baseball franchise hopes to start the project by 2021, the A’s have yet to acquire Howard Terminal or Oakland Coliseum sites, which are currently operated by Alameda County and the city of Oakland. sf.curbed.com/2019/9/10/20859097/oakland-ballpark-stadium-howard-vote-senate-bonta-bill
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Oct 3, 2019 15:57:44 GMT -6
A’s heads ringing after being beaned by Coliseum lawsuit, they’re wondering what's nextFor A’s President Dave Kaval, the lawsuit just filed by the city of Oakland to block the team’s partial purchase of the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum site was like getting beaned by a fastball, one thrown by his own pitcher. The suit took on added significance Tuesday when Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch issued a temporary restraining order on the sale and set a Nov. 14 hearing on the lawsuit. “ We were very close. This will put a chilling effect on us being able to close the deal,” Kaval said following the judge’s order.
“We always felt that any issue would be negotiated by sitting down at the table. Instead, we wind up in a courtroom just when we are hosting 50,000 fans for a wild-card playoff game,” Kaval said Tuesday. “We were just totally blindsided.”For Kaval, the real shocker was that the suit was filed on the same day he had spent 90 minutes with Betsy Lake, the city’s lead negotiator on the waterfront ballpark deal the A’s are trying to nail down at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal. Kaval said the meeting had been “on these very issues, and no one said word one about a lawsuit being filed.” The 155-acre Coliseum site is jointly owned by Oakland and Alameda County. The A’s have offered $85 million for the county’s 50% share, and the county appears ready to make the deal. Oakland, however, is worried that the A’s deal won’t include enough benefits for the surrounding community and wants control of the whole site. Did you know that subscribers get full access to our native app? The suit accuses the county of violating the Surplus Land Act, a state law that requires publicly owned surplus lands to be considered for affordable housing before it’s sold or leased. After the suit became public Monday night, City Council President Rebecca Kaplan issued a statement calling the suit “the right thing to do to protect the interests of the taxpayers over these public lands,” and to “protect the long term credibility of the project.” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, like Kaplan, opposed the sale of the county’s share of the Coliseum land to the A’s, Schaaf said the suit had been filed by the city attorney on orders from the City Council, independent of the mayor’s office. Schaaf immediately called for the lawsuit to be suspended, “so we can all collaborate together on a beneficial future” for the A’s and the city. At this point Kaval is just trying to figure out whom to talk to. “I don’t know what it means for our ongoing relations with the city,” Kaval said. “We are in a fact-finding mode right now.” The lawsuit comes as the A’s are working on a two-part deal to build a privately financed waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal that would be paid for by a development partnership with the city at the Coliseum site. “We have said from the beginning that we have two projects and that they are both important to what we are trying to accomplish,” Kaval said. But it’s far from a done deal. And the lawsuit makes the prospects for one even more dicey. The shipping and trucking industry has raised significant concerns about the viability of a ballpark and the associated development at the port. There have also been rumblings that the $85 million the A’s are offering for a 50% interest in the 155-acre Coliseum site is far below market value. At the same time the city has been sending mixed signals. For more than a year, Schaaf and the council have been talking with Alameda County about buying the county’s share of the land, but after more than 30 meetings the city has yet to come up with a firm offer. “ This only shows how dysfunctional the city can be,” Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty said.“We had a meeting set up with them, and they canceled it. We continue to try to set up meetings and the next thing we get from them is a lawsuit,” Haggerty said. City Councilman Larry Reid, who has been trying to negotiate a compromise, said, “At this point I have no idea what is going on. All I know is that my colleagues directed the city attorney to file suit,” Reid said. “It is what it is.”www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/Oakland-sues-to-block-A-s-buying-into-Coliseum-14484252.php
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Nov 22, 2019 13:52:35 GMT -6
A's gain hope as City of Oakland drops lawsuit against Alameda Countyhere's still a long way to go, but the A's are one step closer to getting a new stadium built in Oakland. On Wednesday, the Oakland City Council directed the City Attorney to immediately drop Oakland's lawsuit against Alameda County, paving the way for the sale of the Coliseum. "We are pleased that the Oakland City Council has directed the City Attorney to immediately drop this lawsuit," A's President Dave Kaval said in a team statement. "We are committed to the long-term success of East Oakland and the Coliseum site. We look forward to finalizing our agreement with Alameda County, and creating a mutually beneficial partnership with the City of Oakland." MLB commissioner Rob Manfred previously had warned Oakland officials in October to drop the lawsuit for fear of losing the team to relocation. With the lawsuit dropped, the City of Oakland and the A's can move forward on the sale of the Coliseum land, on which the A's intend to develop housing, shops, restaurants and a park that will help fund the Howard Terminal site.www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/athletics/gain-hope-city-oakland-drops-lawsuit-against-alameda-county
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 5, 2020 17:38:33 GMT -6
Alameda County Opts to Sell Share of Coliseum Site to A’sAlameda County is proceeding with a sale of its half-share of the Oakland Coliseum site to the Oakland A’s, as supervisors unanimously advanced the deal Monday. Back in April, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors moved forward with a planned sale of its half interest in the Oakland Coliseum site to the A’s ownership for $85 million. A later lawsuit filed by the City of Oakland–which co-owns the site with the county–temporarily put the transaction in question, but the city opted last month to drop the lawsuit and open negotiations with the team while allowing Alameda to move forward with finalizing its agreement with the A’s. The plan went before supervisors on Monday who, as expected, unanimously voted to sell the county’s share of the property to the A’s. Technically, Monday’s vote does not finalize the sale–it instead triggers a 190-day review period that could lead into a finalized agreement– but it is nonetheless a significant step forward in the A’s efforts to obtain the site. Under the terms that have been hammered out by the A’s and Alameda County, the team would pay the $85 million over a six-year window, while contributing $5 million annually toward the site’s operating costs. For Alameda County, a sale of its share to the A’s would yield funds to pay off debt from renovations made in the mid-1990’s to lure the NFL’s Raiders back to the Coliseum. More from the San Francisco Chronicle: “We’ve worked all year to get to this day,” said Dave Kaval, CEO of the A’s. “We are very excited about today. It’s a big deal. We are excited to move forward in the next step.” Mayor Libby Schaaf had previously opposed the sale, but on Monday she said the transaction represents progress for East Oakland and A’s fans: “My greatest hope is that any sale of public land by the county includes generous community benefits, affordable housing and ensures that the people who will benefit most are the residents of East Oakland.” The agreement between that has been in the works would allow Alameda County to get out of the sports facilities business, while potentially giving the A’s more influence in mapping out the site’s future. As part of their ongoing effort to build a new ballpark at the waterfront Howard Terminal site, the A’s are proposing a large-scale redevelopment of the Coliseum complex. More exact parameters of that project could take shape over time, but the A’s have released a broad vision that includes tearing down RingCentral Coliseum and replacing it with a small sports park/amphitheater (as shown in the rendering above), retaining Oakland Arena as an event venue, and redeveloping the surrounding the land with mixed-use amenities. With the construction of any new ballpark and ancillary mixed-used development at Howard Terminal expected to be privately financed, it is believed that redeveloping the Coliseum site would make any initiatives at Howard Terminal more economically viable for the A’s. In theory, control of the Coliseum property also gives the A’s a fallback option for a new ballpark site in the event that the organization cannot finalize plans at Howard Terminal. ballparkdigest.com/2019/12/26/alameda-county-opts-to-sell-share-of-coliseum-site-to-as/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 28, 2020 4:04:38 GMT -6
From last week A’s Howard Terminal Ballpark Push Takes Another Step Forwardby Zach Spedden on January 22, 2020 in Major-League Baseball, News New Oakland Athletics Ballpark Renderings May 2019 The Oakland A’s push to build a new ballpark at Howard Terminal has taken another step forward, with the Oakland City Council approving an agreement that allows an environmental review to be released.The A’s are looking to replace the Coliseum with a new ballpark, proposing the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal as the site of a privately financed facility that would anchor surrounding mixed-use development. While the proposal still has hurdles to clear, the A’s have made considerable progress since they first unveiled it in November 2018. That push continued on Tuesday, with the city council unanimously approving an agreement with the port that allows for the release of an environmental review of the proposal. More from KCBS Radio. An environmental review is key to the process, as the report is expected to analyze the proposed development’s potential impact on the property. Its release would come ahead of what will likely be some crucial decisions by the city council, including whether to approve the creation of a special use tax district to help fund infrastructure for a Howard Terminal project. The A’s have been hoping to break ground at Howard Terminal next year, setting up a 2023 opening for the ballpark. For the A’s, the Howard Terminal ballpark is one part of a larger proposal that also calls for the redevelopment of the Coliseum site. More exact parameters of that project could take shape over time, but the A’s have released a broad vision that includes tearing down the Coliseum and replacing it with a small sports park/amphitheater, retaining Oakland Arena as an event venue, and redeveloping the surrounding the land with mixed-use amenities. Alameda County voted last month to proceed with a sale of its half-share of the Coliseum site to the A’s for $85 million, and the team and the city are currently in negotiations about Oakland’s 50% stake in the property. ballparkdigest.com/2020/01/22/as-howard-terminal-ballpark-push-takes-another-step-forward/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 28, 2020 8:12:43 GMT -6
Susan Slusser @susanslusser · Jan 25 A’s hoping for stadium approval this summer and if so, they’re on track for 2023: Asked about A's stadium hunt, team president says: 'Get the shovels ready!' Oakland A’s president Dave Kaval said that he is hopeful that the A’s receive the go-ahead for their targeted Howard Terminal stadium site as soon as this summer.sfchronicle.com Oakland Fan Pledge Retweeted Matt Leonard @mattoakland · Jan 9 Oakland #HowardTerminal report back: city assuming no gondola. Proposal for amtrak crossings (Market for cars, MLK for peds), and bike lane improvements inc. separated cycletrack on 7th. "Transit hub" on 2nd St. (glorified bus stop & hope for BART if new transbay tube happens. 32,000 showed up for the A's fan fest this weekend Star 3rd baseman Matt Chapman is actually open to a contract extension and he wants them to sign Marcus Siemen to an extension too though the A's want to want until the park is 100% certain. It's notable that Matt Chapman is a Scott Boras client and they almost never accept extensions and want to try free agency.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 28, 2020 8:26:50 GMT -6
writeup from an A's fan on the process:
For anyone unfamiliar with this situation, the draft EIR is scheduled to be released on Valentine’s day, and there’s a 60 day period for the city and the team to work together to amend and certify the report. The go-ahead vote Kaval is talking about would then have to happen sometime before that 60 day period is up, so it would be on April 14th at the latest. Then if that passes the A’s will work toward breaking ground in 2021, with the ballpark scheduled to be ready for opening day 2023.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 28, 2020 8:44:41 GMT -6
Here is a sleeper pick for the AL west/to win it all. The Oakland A's!!!! Houston lost Gerritt Cole to the Yankees and have been caught in a sign steeling scandle that got their manager and general manager fired. Number 1 starter Justin Verlander is 37 years old, number 2 starter Zach Grienke is 36 with declining velocity though he's still good. Number 3 Lance McCullers missed all of last year with injury. Shortstop Carlos Correa can't stay healthy. George Springer and Jose Altuve have passed age 30. The 1st baseman Guriel turns 36 during the season, left field Michael Brantley turns 33 this year and has a long injury history though he was good last year. They lost catcher Robinson Chernos who had a carear year to Texas and now only have good glove/no hit Martin Maldenado who turns 34 during the year. How good are the Astros hitters without knowing what is coming? How much of a distraction will all this be?
The A's won 97 games last year(10 behind Houston) and get number 1 starter Sean Manaea back from injury(he only made a handful of starts at the end of last year including the wild card game loss). Stud prospect Jesus Luzurado moves into the rotation this year and they get back Frankie Montas in the rotation from drug suspension. He was pretty good 2 years ago. The A's got a pretty good lineup other than a pretty big hole at 2nd base.
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 31, 2020 13:26:34 GMT -6
Port Director: We Can Make Howard Terminal Ballpark Workby Zach Spedden on January 30, 2020 in Future Ballparks, Major-League Baseball New Oakland Athletics Ballpark Renderings May 2019 In comments this week, the executive director of the Port of Oakland expressed his belief that a new Oakland A’s ballpark could be built at Howard Terminal without interfering with existing port operations. The A’s continue their push for a major project at Howard Terminal, which calls for a new ballpark that will be surrounded by mixed-use development. Throughout the planning process, concerns have been raised by a coalition of port stakeholders, who contend that the ballpark and surrounding development could interfere with existing operations and limit the port’s growth potential. That issue was discussed by Port of Oakland executive director Danny Wan during his first State of the Port address on Wednesday. Wan, who took over the position in November, b elieves that if the proper measures are put into place, the A’s will be able to move forward with their proposal without disrupting normal business at the port. He suggested that an “industrial sanctuary policy” could be adopted to ensure that the ballpark and surrounding development did not conflict with port operations, though he did not offer up many details about the potential policy. More from CBS SF: While the proposal drew applause, Wan offered few details about what such a policy would look like. “From the perspective of the port, the objective of an industrial sanctuary is to provide and preserve the land use, transportation and infrastructure both inside and outside the port area to accommodate transportation, commerce, business and jobs needs of our region,” he said. “The need for an industrial sanctuary does not preclude the proposal by the Oakland Athletics to build a major league ballpark at Howard Terminal,” Wan said.
The ballpark proposal, however, has drawn sharp criticism from International Longshore and Warehouse Union leadership as well as from some of the ports tenants. The A’s have been hoping that the ballpark could be completed by the 2023 season, though the team still needs various approvals at the local level to move the project forward. For the A’s, the Howard Terminal ballpark is one part of a larger proposal that also calls for the redevelopment of the Coliseum site. The A’s have released a broad vision for that project that includes tearing down RingCentral Coliseum and replacing it with a small sports park/amphitheater, retaining Oakland Arena as an event venue, and redeveloping the surrounding the land with mixed-use amenities. Alameda County voted last month to proceed with a sale of its half-share of the Coliseum site to the A’s for $85 million, and the team and the city are currently in negotiations about Oakland’s 50% stake in the property. ballparkdigest.com/2020/01/30/port-director-we-can-make-howard-terminal-ballpark-work/
|
|
|
Post by mikecubs on Jan 31, 2020 13:39:19 GMT -6
What’s up with the Rays and St. Pete? Rick Kriseman won’t say ‘publicly’The mayor continues to reject the Tampa Bay Rays’ plan to split the season in Montreal. But some St. Petersburg City Council members support exploring the idea. It’s been more than seven months since the Tampa Bay Rays unveiled their plan to split home games between the bay area and Montreal. Nearly two months have passed since Mayor Rick Kriseman rejected the plan, saying he would not allow the Rays to negotiate to start playing in Montreal in 2024. The fate of Major League Baseball in Tampa Bay lays trapped in that impasse. So on Thursday, the St. Petersburg City Council asked the mayor for an update on where negotiations stand between the city and the team. Kriseman said he would tell them — but not in public. “I don’t have anything substantive I can share with you publicly," the mayor said. Instead, he told the eight council members he will update them in private, individual meetings — which are not subject to Florida’s government-in-the-sunshine laws. Kriseman did, however, publicly address the Rays’ recent threat: to stymie development of the 86-acre Tropicana Field so long as they are locked into playing in the dome through 2027. The mayor and city officials are anxious to begin development there. E arlier this week Rays’ officials told council members the same contract that requires the team to play all its home games at the dome through the 2027 season also gives the team a say over what’s built on the land. Team officials believe they could tie the land up in court if the city forces the team to finish its lease at the Trop. Kriseman rejected that stance, saying the city can move forward on Trop development while the team’s future in St. Petersburg remains unsettled.
“The use agreement is very clear regarding the rights afforded to each party," Kriseman said. Any development on the land is subject to “reasonable” approval by the club. The Rays have a legal right to play baseball and to have fans come out to watch. So long as future construction at the Trop site does not impede those endeavors, “denial of approval would be unreasonable," the mayor said. “We are certain that there is development that could occur on the site.” After the meeting, Rays officials issued a short statement: “Time is of the essence, and we appreciate the Council’s time and attention to this matter. Our focus is on the Sister City concept, and we will work with all those who believe it is an idea that merits exploration and consideration.” The Rays’ attempt to leverage the city is the latest escalation of tensions between the city and the team over the split-season concept the Rays introduced in June. The team wants to build new stadiums in the Tampa Bay and Montreal markets and split home games: the spring games in Florida before the rainy season kicks in, and the summer games in Montreal. Rays principal owner Stu Sternburg has said it’s the only way to preserve big league baseball in the bay area. He wants to launch the split-season arrangement as early as 2024. But the Trop’s use agreement includes a powerful exclusivity clause that precludes the team from even exploring the concept before 2027. The team would need the city to suspend that clause to make any plans for a new stadium — whether in Tampa Bay or elsewhere — prior to 2028. But the Rays are free to explore playing anywhere else for the 2028 season and beyond. After a cool reception of the split-season idea, Kriseman formally rejected it in December. He announced that he would not suspend the exclusivity requirements, locking the team into the Trop for 81 home games a year for eight more seasons. Thursday was the latest indication that he will not budge. But it was also the first time some council members expressed support for at least exploring the split-season plan. Council member and likely 2021 mayoral candidate Darden Rice, who asked for Thursday’s meeting to discuss the Rays’ situation and Trop redevelopment, said the “apparent stalemate could be bad for the city." She posited that attempting any development without the Rays’ blessing would be difficult, especially with the threat of litigation looming. She also stressed she didn’t want the development to commence piecemeal. Kriseman countered that Rice’s concerns felt like “talking points from the Rays.” He said the city would solicit bids for a master developer to oversee a complete project, and it could be years before any ground is actually broken. So the Rays pose no threat to development in the short-term, he said. Council vice chair Gina Driscoll lamented Kriseman’s decision to refuse to explore the split-season concept, saying the city could always veto it later. “But I want to find out," she said. "I want the research, I want the exploration.” There were times during Kriseman’s prepared remarks that he appeared to be speaking directly to Sternberg. He reminded council members that the city’s stake in the Trop land is indefinite, while the team’s ends in seven years. But after 2027, the team loses its right to benefit from development revenue generated by the site. “The clock is ticking, but not for us, for the Rays," Kriseman said. “Would you be willing, simply to make a point or because you’re mad at the city, to walk away from millions and millions of dollars that could be yours from development?” www.tampabay.com/news/st-petersburg/2020/01/31/whats-up-with-the-rays-and-st-pete-rick-kriseman-wont-say-publicly/
|
|