The A's Respond to Recent Rumors

A few days ago, Bay Area baseball fans were thrown into a tizzy after Bill Madden of the New York Daily News reported that MLB was unlikely to grant an A's move to San Jose due to the precendant it would set for other teams. That report has since been denied by both the Athletics and MLB head offices. Still, the A's felt the issue needed further clarification; they issued the following statement this morning—

Statement by Oakland A's ownership regarding A's and Giants sharing Bay Area territory:

"Recent articles claiming that Major League Baseball has decided that the A's cannot share the two-team Bay Area market were denied by baseball Commissioner Bud Selig last weekend.

Currently the Giants and A's share the two-team Bay Area market in terms of television, radio, sponsors and fans. Last year, the Giants opened a specialty store in the middle of the A's market (Walnut Creek). At the time, Lew Wolff commented that he was 'fine with the Giants store and wished there was an A's store in San Francisco.'

Of the four two-team markets in MLB, only the Giants and A's do not share the exact same geographic boundaries. MLB-recorded minutes clearly indicate that the Giants were granted Santa Clara, subject to relocating to the city of Santa Clara. The granting of Santa Clara to the Giants was by agreement with the A’s late owner Walter Haas, who approved the request without compensation. The Giants were unable to obtain a vote to move and the return of Santa Clara to its original status was not formally accomplished.

We are not seeking a move that seeks to alter or in any manner disturb MLB territorial rights. We simply seek an approval to create a new venue that our organization and MLB fully recognizes is needed to eliminate our dependence on revenue sharing, to offer our fans and players a modern ballpark, to move over 35 miles further away from the Giants' great venue and to establish an exciting competition between the Giants and A's.

We are hopeful that the Commissioner, the committee appointed by the Commissioner, and a vote of the MLB ownership, will enable us to join the fine array of modern and fun baseball parks that are now commonplace in Major League Baseball."

You're up to bat, San Jose!

Help Support the Quakes' New Stadium

The A's sister team, the San Jose Earthquakes, have a crucial appeal hearing for their proposed stadium tomorrow night at San Jose City Hall. The Planning Commission is considering an 11th hour appeal to the proposal and our friends at the Quakes are asking for fans to come out and publicly support the new stadium. The meeting is at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers on Wednesday the 22nd.

This is a chance for all San Jose pro sports fans to stand up to NIMBYism in our city. Hope to see you there.

Get on the pitch, San Jose!

Pulling the Plug

Tonight, the Tribune's Angela Woodall reports on the shocking development that, due to the governor dismantling the state's redevelopment agencies, Oakland has abandoned its plans for Victory Court, a new estuaryfront stadium for the A's: "We are no longer advocating for Victory Court," said Gregory Hunter, head of the soon to be dissolved Oakland Redevelopment Agency said Monday during a meeting of the Alameda County Supervisors. 

Instead, Oakland plans on putting all of its imaginary eggs into the basket known as "Coliseum City." This hastily-conceived plan is even more ambitious, and expensive, in its intent to keep the A's, the Raiders, and the Warriors (who've apparently left their hearts in San Francisco) from jumping the Oakland ship.

In Oakland's defense, the city and Mayor Quan have really only had a solid year to make contingency plans. Really, what's an ineffective and unwieldy city government supposed to do? After all, San Jose only began dismantling its redevelopment agency (and creating the San Jose Diridon Development Authority) several months ago. On the bright side, maybe Oakland was actually showing some forsight by never following through on Victory Court's promised environmental impact report. Maybe?

So, rest in peace, Victory Court. We hardly knew ya.

You're up to bat, San Jose!
 

A Stadium for San José?

Despite a recent court ruling upholding the California legislature’s elimination of San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA), our Downtown has several economic development projects to look forward to.  An expanded convention center, a renovated Civic Auditorium, a soccer stadium, a medical clinic, a bus rapid-transit system along East Santa Clara Street, a BART extension to San José are all underway within 2012, and the airport recently underwent a $1.5 billion expansion.  None of those projects require a dime of General Fund money, and all have progressed despite the RDA’s demise.  As I wrote an op-ed in the Mercury News, San Jose’s optimistic future starkly contrasts that of many cities scrambling to fill the void left by redevelopment’s demise.   

One privately-financed economic development project planned at the edge of our Downtown, a major league ballpark, has captured the most media attention.  Opening Day in San José awaits the move of the Oakland Athletics southward, which in turn requires approval by Major League Baseball and its constitutionally indecisive Commissioner.

As we have huddled around the Commissioner’s tower, awaiting plumes of white smoke to emerge, rumors swirl of an imminent decision.   As hopes are stirred, pundits jockey for microphones, politicians preen for cameras, and lawyers scurry to file complaints. 

The latest: a San Francisco-backed group financed a lawsuit against the City of San José, alleging, among other things, that Council somehow violated the law by approving an option agreement with the Athletics ownership that “commits the taxpayer-funded [city] property to exclusive use …without a public vote.”  Since stadium opponents—some of whom receive financial backing directly or indirectly from the San Francisco Giants’ ownership—will frequently repeat this claim about a City-subsidized land deal, it bears closer examination:

• There will be a public election by San José voters before anyone constructs a major league ballpark in San José.   Some will debate whether the law actually requires such a vote, but the Council has assured as much by approving my motion on November 14, 2011, in which I explicitly conditioned the exercise of the option contract on a vote of the electorate.  Every detail of the land agreement has been made public, and every dollar will be accounted for before any vote.
• The City wanted this option—not Lew Wolff.  Contrary to some assertions, the A’s ownership didn’t press for this deal; rather, the City sought the option agreement to avoid putting these parcels under a legal cloud which would take years of litigation to clear.   In November of 2011, with a California Supreme Court decision looming, it appeared uncertain that that the RDA--which had acquired the parcels--would survive the decision.  It didn’t.  By encumbering the property with the option agreement in November, we hope to avoid years of legal wrangling to sort out land ownership.
• Under even the most expansive view of San Jose’s public investment in the project, the land sale comes at a bargain.   Critics assert that the RDA spent almost $25.2 million in acquisition and relocation costs for the six parcels, and the City’s Diridon Authority will acquire only $7 million in return, at a net loss of $18.1 million.   Consider this $18.1 million public investment in a fuller context, however: it will leverage a private investment of approximately $489 million in new construction, and millions in annual revenues to restaurants, hotels, and other nearby businesses.   For the taxpayers, the revenue produced directly by the stadium will bring some $1.5 million to the City’s coffers, and another $3.5 million in annual revenues to the County, schools, and other local agencies.  That does not even count the additional tax revenues flowing from nearby development catalyzed by a new stadium; the vastly revitalized urban neighborhoods surrounding stadiums in cities like Baltimore, San Diego, Denver, and San Francisco provide ample reason for optimism.  The taxpayers will get their money’s worth. 
    
• The City Got a Fair Price for the Land. Under any ordinary circumstance, only a W.C. Fields would advise selling land for $7 million after spending three times as much to acquire it.  Yet the $7 million figure came from an independent appraisal, by a well-regarded consultant, Colliers International.   How so?  Three factors explain Colliers’ low figure:
• The RDA bought the parcels between 2006 and 2008, before the recession took its toll on land values, while the appraiser evaluated the site in 2010. 
• When RDA purchased the parcels, the previous owners had aspirations of building housing.  Residential uses buoy land prices.  By 2011, after extensive community engagement, the Council approved a revised General Plan and a Diridon Station Area Plan that precluded housing development, allowing only jobs-supporting uses--such as retail, office, or stadium—on the site.  
• Most importantly, the City required that the A’s ownership could only take advantage of the $7 million price if they built a stadium—and nothing else-- on the parcels.  So, Colliers used a price that reflected that restriction, comparing land prices of other cities’ baseball stadiums, and arrived at a figure of $33/square foot (about $ 7 million for the 4.66 acres).  
• If the Ballpark Isn’t Built, the City Keeps the Land—and the Money. Finally, if all goes south, and the Athletics stay north, and no stadium results, what happens?  Under the terms of the deal, nothing: the City keeps the land, the City keeps $50,000 option price, and the City keeps the $150,000 in parking revenue from the site.  In other words, the City is $200,000 richer, and taxpayers keep the land.  And that’s only if things don’t work out… is that so bad?

Of course, before any shovels hit the dirt, there will be much to discuss in public, including the preparation of a management plan for traffic, parking, and construction, to minimize the impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.  Along with the terms of the financial deal, all of these issues deserve close scrutiny.  Let’s do so with a fair discussion of all of the data, and with a mind open to the extraordinary opportunity that lies ahead.

Sincerely,


Sam Liccardo


Sam Liccardo is a Councilmember representing San Jose's 3rd District that includes Downtown.  This letter appeared in Sam's monthly newsletter to residents that he gave Baseball San Jose permission to post on our blog.  

2012 Comes into Focus

We thought we'd had one too many egg nogs when, late last week, we heard about Bob Nightengale's tweet: "All signs and top MLB sources say that the Athletics will be granted permission by Feb to move to San Jose." Surely, we were simply overcome with the spirit of the season, but as it turns out, Nightengale's tweet was legit. And it further confirmed the momentum the Athletics' move to San Jose has gained. Thus, Silicon Valley got a little something extra to smile about on Christmas Eve.

Of course, it wouldn't be the holidays without Scrooge. This season, he comes courtesy of the San Francisco Giants. In an interview with the Chronicle, Peter Magowan, former Giants managing partner, called an A's move to San Jose "wishful thinking." Still acting as if they alone control Santa Clara County's territorial rights, the Giants continue to display the worst of competitive sports. The real wishful thinking is the belief that San Joseans will simply hand over control of their city's destiny to a greedy team from 40 miles north.

Still, even the Giants can't kill our holiday fun. As we look forward to 2012, all indications are that MLB will grant this move. As always, we are ready. In fact, the champagne is already chilling. 

You're up to bat, San Jose!

Happy Holidays from Baseball San Jose!

We, here at Baseball San Jose, would like to wish our community of supporters all the best this holiday season. And though it may not come on Christmas morning exactly, we believe Santa will be very good to us very soon.

The Painfully Obvious Conspiracy

Tonight, the Mercury's Tracy Seipel wrote about the seemingly shadowy group known as Stand for San Jose. But unlike Anonymous or Skull and Bones or The Secret Society of Super Villains, there really is no mystery here. Plain and simple, SFSJ is a front group for the San Francisco Giants. Apparently, the real secret is its membership. In fact, it's such a secret that even its own members don't know when they're representing the group in court, as was the case with SFSJ member Eileen Hannan. Only recently did she learn that she was a plaintiff in the group's lawsuit against San Jose. That's a curious way to run an organization, but when you're not really made up of anyone real, what can you expect?  

Ultimately, all of these are signs that the Giants are scared. Their grip on Silicon Valley is quickly loosening as signs point to a decision favoring San Jose within a month. The Giants' Santa Clara County territorial rights may soon be a thing of the past. And it is the truth that shall set them free. 

You're up to bat, San Jose!