MARK PURDY is a sports writer for the San Jose Mercury News, and a fine one at that; Purdy's prose is one of the main reasons I read the Merc, and in spite of our profound disagreement on the future of the OAKLAND A's, I will still read Purdy's columns and posts on-line, even though he's dead wrong about where, when, and how the A's 'eventually find their safe haven in the South Bay.
Let's go over this conundrum piece by piece. The A's and part owner Lew Wolff, (Wolff owns about 10% of the team, give or take a few; the majority of the franchise is owned by GAP's John Fisher) have been unhappy with the ageing Oakland Coliseum, whom they share with the Oakland Raiders.
Wolff is essentially the front man for Fisher, who has remained pretty much in the background and doesn't do many interviews. The duo bought the A's in 2005 from previous owners Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman.
In the three-plus years of their ownership, the Athletics have had one winning season---2006, when they won the AL West, before being eliminated by the Detroit Tigers in the ALCS. In the following years, 2007 and '08, the A's, with paltry rosters and a plague of injuries had back-to-back losing seasons. It didn't help matters that the personnel of the team was largely confined to the triple-A team, and it's only marquee player was often-injured Eric Chavez.
Back to Mr. Wolff. A prominent real estate developer in San Jose and LA, Wolff laid the groundwork for a proposal to build a new "ballpark village" just south of the existing Coliseum. The proposal would include a stadium, surrounded by a combination of housing and retail in the industrial area along the 66Th avenue corridor and beyond.
From the outset, it appeared the proposal was doomed from the start. Several businesses in area cried foul, as any new stadium/housing project, however promising and ambitious, was dubious at best because such venture would face a serious amount of litigation from residents, and lengthy eminent-domain proceedings given the fact that much of the proposal would require several buildings would have to be razed.
The ballpark/village project was quickly scrapped when it became apparent that both resident opposition and lukewarm support from Oakland political leaders like then-Mayor Jerry Brown and Council President Ignacio De LaFuente. In addition, some observers stated that Wolff's proposal was simply a way to make it appear that the franchise was looking to stay in Oakland, but in reality, had their sights on re-locating to either San Jose or, as it was revealed in late 2006, in Fremont, on a site just off Interstate 880.
After a series of "EIR reports", (environmental impact) site locations re-shifted due to infrastructure problems, and heavy, unanticipated resident opposition to the idea of a combination ballpark/housing project, the Fremont dream of "Cisco Field" evaporated. The A's spent nearly $29 million on the proposal only to see it go up in flames.
After the Fremont debacle, Wolff said there would be a month-long moratorium on any stadium talk. "The only baseball I want to talk about is in Arizona", he told the Chronicle's "Matier and Ross". That was in response to Oakland political leaders declaring publicly that they would seek a meeting with Wolff and again explore a way to keep the team in Oakland.
Late last week, new council President , Jane Brunner, sent a letter to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, stating that the city desired MLB to look at ways to keeping the team in the Eastbay, and that San Jose would not be an option due to "territorial rights" owned by the SF Giants.
That letter drew the ire of the A's; Wolff was reportedly livid that Oakland, in his mind, was grandstanding. On Friday, the Athletics's and Wolff sent out a terse press release denouncing the city and Wolff himself saying in effect that the team wanted nothing to do with Oakland's plans for the future.
That set off a flurry of "what if's" and "we'll, are the A's headed to San Jose?" stories. KNBR's Gary Radnich was the first to proclaim that the A's "should really be in San Jose--in this area, 'that's where the action is". Radnich even joked that "we'll, I guess Mark Purdy is going to write another 'San Jose story". Local TV and radio stations, as if on 'auto-pilot' did the usual 'send-a-reporter' to local tavern in the south bay and ask fans if they'd like to see the A's come to San Jose. We'll, duh!
San Jose has long coveted the A's, but of course backed off when it appeared the A's and "Cisco Field" was a formality and would be ready in time for the 2012 season. As it became apparent that the A's "field-of-dreams" was doomed, the San Jose stories began appearing again and yes, Purdy was at it, including e-mailing me Wolff's press release and saying gleefully that the A's future in Oakland was about to end.
Really? Not so fast, Mark. Let's look at some non-debatable facts:
Now that Wolff's aired out publicly his distaste for Oakland, as a future home for his team, the question becomes, "OK, Lew, but now what?" Could he move the team? Sure, but where? San Jose. No sir. Portland? Get real. Sacramento? The same city that can't even keep it's beloved NBA's Kings, whose owners, the Maloof family want desperately out of the capitol that they've begun quietly looking at Anaheim, Las Vegas, and yes, even San Jose, although the Golden State Warriors may have a say in that development. Again, just where can Wolff go? It's not as easy as it sounds.
We do know one thing. The A's will open the season in April, in Oakland, like they have for the past 41 years. Whether or not they're thrilled about the idea of playing in what is admittedly, an aging stadium with a hideous monument in center field, known as "Mt. Davis", the Athletics will nonetheless take the field and play a 2009 season at the corner of 66Th ave. and Hegenberger road. And again in 2010. And probably again, in 2011 and 2012 too.
Why? Because, as much as Wolff and his legion of associates hate to acknowledge it, where else is there to go? Whatever leverage Wolff thinks he has is a mystery to many because, we'll, among other things, we're in a different world, literally and figuratively. There's Wolff's world and that may have San Jose in it, and then there's the rest of the world that is a part of the real world.
Let us do some 'splaining.
San Jose is indeed a booming city and has a pretty good hockey team that plays in a nice, spacious, gleaming arena called HP Pavilion. That's "Hewlett-Packard", the same company that recently proposed to its thousands of workers the idea of a work furlough as a possibility as opposed to "layoffs". Like virtually every other company in the country, HP is facing severe revenue reductions due to the deep recession the nation is in. And it's especially hit Silicon Valley, as thousands of dot.com companies have laid off workers and cut their operating budget dramatically.
San Jose has an area, near the arena, already designated for a new stadium and just last week, Mayor Chuck Reed and some overly-confidant city council people stated their desire that some baseball team, wink-wink, could conceivably play in their great city and that they'd tell MLB about it even.
In 2000, the SF Giants opened their new, waterfront ballpark. The Giants also maintained a "territorial-rights" document with MLB and Selig, mindful of the possibility that the A's, or any team for that matter, would consider the south bay/San Jose Silicon Valley for it's eventual home in an area with lots of land and cash, and great weather too.
The Giants have a massive, yearly, $20 million debt payment on AT&T Park and are concerned that any possible A's venture into San Jose would affect their corporate base, both advertising and season-ticket holders. Indeed, many of the Giants fans live in the peninsula and south bay area. A few bad seasons and conceivably any new A's ballpark would be filled with old Giants fans and maybe some advertisers with them. Not to mention the fact, that the Giants radio/TV/cable rights fees would be significantly reduced with a team in their backyard; we'll, actually 30 miles to the south, but the Giants are sensitive about that, as they should be, being that their special little splash pad-of-a-ballpark was privately financed and so, those little "territorial-rights" documents actually meant something and we will protect them to the fullest.
And if you dare try to challenge us on them, we'll see you in court along with our fellow MLB owners and the Commissioner, Bud Selig.
And that's just a few of the obstacles in the way of the "San Jose A's".
There's the story that the A's could simply pay the Giants a huge amount of cash, essentially buying their way into the region, with the backing of MLB, but the Giants have maintained that is not an option, and besides, no amount of cash would be even remotely enough to cover such things as rights fees, corporate accounts, and the like. In essence, the Giants have said to the A's, "look, we know you need a new place, and as long as that 'place is on the OTHER side of the bay, like, say, Fremont, or Walnut Creek, or Pleasanton, fine---the west bay, SF, the peninsula, and yes, SAN JOSE, is our territory, and you dare 'screw with our area, we'll see you in court".
That's a lot of potential litigation. And litigation takes time. And based on Lew Wolff's personal menu, time is rapidly running out. Even if the Giants were to somehow be bought off, there's several other issues that make the concept of the "San Jose A's" a pipe dream at best.
Like other cities, San Jose is facing budgetary issues. As more and more people become unemployed, the idea of a municipality even talking about the idea of a new stadium for a multi-million dollar sports company is an anathema to many local residents. Just ask Fremont.
And although the A's have stated they would privately finance any new stadium, inevitably, the cost of added infrastructure, like new access roads, traffic management, parking maintenance costs money. In San Jose, that's estimated at around $50-75 million alone. In this current economic environment, the idea of that cost factor alone coming from a city budget that's being slashed, would be met with severe local opposition. Just the other day on KCBS, an ad-hoc committee of several SJ residents told the reporter the group would challenge ANY idea of a new stadium in their city and one said Reed and council members faced voter retaliation, not to mention a lawsuit if they went further with any stadium talk.
Need one say any more? There's a reason why few new stadiums or arenas get built in California and that's just a few of them. It took the Giants years and years of litigation, behind-the-scenes negotiations, ballot proposals, politics, to build their new yard, and theirs was privately financed.
LA has been talking about a new football stadium for years, and last I checked, the only stadium in LA is the aging Coliseum and the 100 year-old Rose Bowl in Pasadena. You'd think in an area that has a ton of cash, they'd be able to build a stadium that the NFL would covet, but so far all the football speculation is pure talk. And apparently in LA, that's OK with the citizenry because no one cares.
So, back to the A's. Wolff and company have very few options. They could sell the team, but in this economy, who would buy? And where would they play? He could look at other sites, but again, where? and how much time would that take? Wolff is in his mid 70's, any by the time anything would or could happen, he'd be approaching his mid-80's. I don't think that's an option Wolff would like.
The last option is probably the worst, hold-your-nose, idea and on the face of it, would be met with a severe case of "aw, -hit, let's just build it in Oakland and get it over with!"
That would be known as the audacity of, get this, building a new stadium right smack dab next to the old one, where the land is available, and the area is near EXISTING infrastructure, like BART, mass transit, plenty of parking, and wait!, could be built in just under two years! Imagine that. In fact, I'd bet that an an enticement like in exchange for staying in Oakland and committing to a new 20-year lease, the city and county would give the land free to Wolff to build his new 40,000-seat palace.
This idea makes sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which means, A. the A's get their new home and could have it ready in a realistic 2012 opening; the Raiders, who also want a new stadium, would then have the existing Coliseum to their own, and with, say, a $100 million spruce-up, as opposed to a $600-700 million stadium, (money they don't have and in this credit-crisis, banking environment, probably couldn't borrow) the Raiders could then have a relatively nice, newly football-only facility that would be the envy of a few teams, (oh, like maybe the SF 49Er's?) This makes way too much sense, but I'm just a dreamer.
Just imagine for a moment the ridiculous notion of a new "OAKLAND" A's stadium on a proven site with a beautiful view of the Oakland Hills, sitting directly next to a beautifully-spruced-up football stadium, where the "Black Hole" is a virtual paradise, and next to this newly-refurbished football-ONLY palace, is the still, beautifully gleaming "Oracle Arena", home to the Golden State Warriors? Just imagine. It would eclipse Kansas City's still unique "Arrowhead Stadium" and baseball's "Kaufman Stadium" as the only city that had stadia/arena right smack in the same area. Imagine.
Parking is a legitimate question, but theirs an answer to this, as the city and county have the auxiliary lots over the Nimitz freeway, and also the area of land where the Christmas trees lot and yearly carnival is held. Shuttle buses can be utilized, and BART could simply add more additional trains to handle the increased patronage; many fans, concert -goers take BART anyway because it beats the hassle of traffic and is perfectly located right across from the stadium(s) and Oracle arena.
This idea is the most logical and PRACTICAL. It isn't perfect, but who and what is? In an ideal world, the A's and then-Mayor Brown would have built a new, 35,000 seat stadium downtown, across from the Sears store, right next to the beautifully-restored Fox Theatre in an area that is suddenly the hippest, coolest area in Oakland, with loads and loads of brand-new restaurants and condos and lofts, but unfortunately, Jerry Brown doesn't like or understand sports, so we can dream about the "what if's and "damn, if he only knew", but that was then and this is now.
There's other sites too, like Jack London Square, but the land there is not dense and large enough according to a few developers, and the area near Laney College, just off 880, while visually delightful, would inevitably draw neighborhood opposition, and thus, more lengthy possible litigation, which again, takes more time.
The Coliseum site is a proven winner. Just go back to the days of the Haas ownership in the 80's and early 90's when 40,000 fans packed that stadium on a daily/nightly basis--it helped that ownership made it clear that the A's were going nowhere and that the only place they'd play was in OAKLAND. They also averaged 2.6 million fans, and in 1990, just under 3 million. It's amazing what happens when an organization tells its customers, "look, come out, enjoy the sun, have a hot dog, we're here to STAY". The rest, as they say, is history.
Mr. Wolff, you have a winning team here in OAKLAND this season. Everyone is talking about how exciting your team looks on paper. We're all stoked. Billy Beane has re-loaded the team with Matt Holliday, Jason Giambi, Nomar Garciaparra and Orlando Cabrera. The fans want to embrace this team; there's hope that these exciting new, young pitchers are looking like the "Big three", those ancient pitching wonders named Mulder, Hudson, and Zito.
Don't spoil the excitement. Don't cut your nose to spite your face. You have few options, but this one is not as bad as you would think. Best of all, it makes utter sense and it could be executed in a relative short amount of time. Just think, you'd be down there right near the dugout as the A's take the field as 40,000 fans scream their hearts out as "OUR" A's, the "Oakland A's" take the field.
To steal a slogan from a well-known company, Mr. Wolff, "Just do it".
RICH LIEBERMAN
'03-14-'09 10:42 AM PST
No comments:
Post a Comment