lew wolff interview
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/22/BUGN8GOSIJ1.DTL
Chronicle has long interview with Lew Wolff today. Main points include:
1) Site north of Coli going nowhere because landowners want too much.
2) Triangle south of Coli is attractive at the right price because a parking lot could be built there, allowing a stadium to be built in existing North Lot.
3) Oakland doesn't have a lot of time to deal with the issue.
4) They want to stay in Alameda -- next stop Fremont?
5) Not optimistic about San Jose because Giants don't need to negotiate over it.
6) New Coliseum configuration is not a conspiracy to lower attendance but more a way to reduce security costs -- but Coli outdated in any configuration.
7) He doesn't want Kotsay injured because of damage to the field once football starts (how 'bout that for a weird argument.)
0 recs |
43 comments
Comments
Interesting plan:
What cities do have, especially in the area of growth, and the Bay Area, good or bad, is growing, whether it's growing right or not is not my decision totally, they have zoning rights. We call them entitlements; you're entitled to build 1,000 apartment units.
Those entitlements are the new currency, in my opinion, for cities, governments and regionals and counties and so forth.
So let's assume there is the Oakland army base, and that has a lot of demands from a lot of groups, and it's not a great location for a ballpark. It's a piece of land I think the city owns, but if not, they can get to it.
Let's assume that developers, not so much ourselves, feel that is a great housing location. Our idea might be that since it's not zoned right now but is to be zoned or to be entitled, why not entitle it for 3,000 apartment units?
Those units might be worth $100,000 a piece. It's sort of your land value. Whether we're the developer or we join with a developer or a developer that we're not associated with says, "We'll pay $300 million for those entitlements rights."
We're saying to the city, "That's the subsidy we want, but we don't want it for free. Put it into the ballpark. If the ballpark costs $500 million, we'll add the $200 million, take care of the overruns, and we'll do the land under it."
That entitlement is a value, is a currency they can help us with. So what do they get out of it? They get a ballpark, which they'll own, and we'll have a longer lease than we have today, and somebody will build 3,000 apartment units. We think it's a very interesting idea.
by OaktownTribesman on Jan 22, 2006 11:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
About the Army site
by haren4prez on Jan 22, 2006 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
best thing mr. wolff said
by gotgreen on Jan 22, 2006 11:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Also
That money we get, the charity we get, that money from the league, the only reason we're getting it is we are in a market where we're not supporting ourselves, so we get support. It's wonderful. If the Yankees want to keep giving us money that way, that's fine. Somewhere, that will come to an end. We would rather be paying it out rather than receiving it.
by OaktownTribesman on Jan 22, 2006 11:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
With friends like this . . .
Wow, that doesn't say much for Bud.
by Jeff in Seattle on Jan 22, 2006 11:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
by OaktownTribesman on Jan 22, 2006 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Coliseum parking lot is still the best spot.
Sure, we'd all like to see a park in Jack London Square or some place similar. But being wedged between the freeway and BART has been and still is a major selling point for the ol' Coliseum, and NO OTHER site so far has that.
Of course everyone is going to try and read into what he said about San Jose and territorial rights. But if you're the Giants, what do you want? Well, if I'm the Giants, I want the A's to leave the Bay Area. (can I get an "Amen" on that?)
In short, San Jose will always be a possibility. But if there's been some secret deal made behind the scenes, we have a very long way to go before San Jose becomes a realistic spot.
by Rob on Jan 22, 2006 12:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
UNLESS there's been a behind the scenes deal...
by Rob on Jan 22, 2006 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is anyone missing
by alox on Jan 22, 2006 1:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Really, I thought that...
Lew says, "Our goal is to try to stay." Interviewer follows that with, "Is there a threshold (after which you would be forced to)...look at other options outside of Alameda County?" Lew replies, "We have to look at all options...and those will, at this point, remain in Alameda County." Interviewer: "You're looking at an area that not only has a fairly skimpy corporate base...Why are you still looking at Oakland?" Wolff: "(The Coliseum)'s logical. It's got BART...access to the freeway system...It would be nice to stay." Interviewer: "How long will you wait before you entertain an offer from San Jose or Las Vegas?" Wolff: "We aren't considering offers...We may talk to the Giants, but I haven't really exercised a lot of energy on that." Interviewer: "If not for territorial rights, would San Jose be your first choice?" Wolff: "Our first choice is the one we are focused on. Life is a lot easier for us. Our next choice would be Fremont or San Jose."
If there was any trial ballooning going on, I'd say he was testing for public reaction on this entitlement/zoning approach to subsidizing a new ballpark. It's too bad he's not a better storyteller, because I imagine that most were totally confused by what he was talking about.
by lexdevil on Jan 22, 2006 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But Lew
A: "The threshold is the very one I said eight months ago: If the exciting next season starts, and we don't have a firm direction -- and this is more our responsibility than the community's -- we will have to look at all options that are on the table, and those will, at this point, remain in Alameda County"
So Oaklands deadline remains the same, but now they are at square one again with slightly more than 3 months before time expires. Wolfe states that Alameda county (Fremont) is next in line. Wolfe was not shy in extolling the virtues of San Jose....not so much with Fremont.
"I know San Jose better than I know Oakland, and I think there are some opportunities there, but right now, that area is Giants territory. We may talk to the Giants, but I haven't really exercised a lot of energy on that."
I'm very partial to downtown San Jose. I think sports there could be very great for the community. But in order to have negotiations, you have to have someone (to negotiate with). The other side says there is no negotiation. I'm the world's leading negotiator.
"Would they deserve anything? It's really up to Major League Baseball. The answer is we would be happy to figure out what's fair. If we're hurting somebody moving somewhere, there should be an adjustment someplace"
On the subject of the Giants territorial rights:
"they have a very important territorial right to them and their sponsors, and I have not disputed that. I feel differently about it, but I'm not the umpire here."
To me this sounds like Lew reaching out and letting SJ knows that he is interested. He is also letting them know that they will have to raise a little hell with the commissioners office....but the issues are not insurmountable.
Maybe I'm reading a little too much between the lines....but I don't think so.
by alox on Jan 22, 2006 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're both right
I was actually quite impressed with the Chron side of the interview...the last sentence lists 16 Chron staff who participated, so they clearly mined pretty hard for tougher questions than we've heard asked of Lew. Some of both the Q and A seemed aware of the more critical analyses of A's intent which we've seen here on AN and elsewhere.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 22, 2006 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it seems to me the
- Oakland, your running out of time...not that you had a chance anyway.
- Sure, we want to stay in the east bay.....how about Fremont....By the way, ARE YOU LISTENING SJ?
- Need someone to step up and start talking from SJ.
- Good friends with the Commish, really don't believe that territorial rights will be much of a problem when the time comes.
by alox on Jan 22, 2006 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you missed the part
by Nico on Jan 22, 2006 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And it could just come down to that...
Remember, it's the voting citizens of OAKLAND these politicos have to answer to. Not the citizens of San Leandro, Fremont, Walnut Creek and wherever else the bulk of our fans come from.
I think it's very fair to say that 2/3 of the residents WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS care more about jobs, crime, and schools more than anything else.More than that, they probably can't even afford to go to a game(or at least think they can't)
You get those people to change their minds, and you have(to pardon the phrase) a whole new ballgame.
And yes, it was the Raiders deal that is responsible for much of this negative attitude. But before everyone blames Al Davis again remember, it was the Oakland city leaders that approved it. And if they approve another one for the A's, they're likely out of office come the next election.
by Rob on Jan 22, 2006 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oakland does want the A's to stay
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 22, 2006 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If I were in Oakland civic government ...
Wolff's "creative" land-use schemes strike me as precisely that: creative schemes.
Wolff has every right to make as much money as he wants -- and the City of Oakland has a right to protect the financial interests of its citizens. Wolff hasn't suggested anything I've seen that satisfies (let alone satisfices) those two sets of interests.
by monkeyball on Jan 22, 2006 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
by alox on Jan 23, 2006 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bite?
by OaktownTribesman on Jan 22, 2006 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't sound good for an Oakland stadium
Rob makes a good point about the Giants' stance on this issue--the best thing that can happen for them is the A's going to Sacramento, Vegas or Portland. So even if they can't block a change of territorial rights, the Giants might try and make it expensive enough so that an out-of-area site makes more financial sense for the A's.
by jeepers on Jan 22, 2006 1:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I agree that
by alox on Jan 22, 2006 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Coliseum or bust?
- The only viable location in Oakland is on or near the current Coliseum property.
- Workable sites for a stadium can be put together in San Jose. There is a possible location near the downtown SJ arena that was discussed here recently. Maybe the Santa Clara site that the Giants wanted several years ago can still be pieced together.
- Maybe there will be an under-the-table deal between Wolff and the Giants -- but rather than a deal that allows the A's to move to San Jose, maybe it will be a deal that puts big money in Wolff's pocket for staying in Oakland or leaving the Bay Area. The Giants' "territorial rights" probably would not survive a court test if Wolff wanted to take them on, so the Giants might be motivated to pay Wolff to not challenge the Giants.
by socal on Jan 22, 2006 2:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think
by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Jan 22, 2006 2:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Baseball Village Concept Isn't Looking 2 Good.
by sf drift king on Jan 22, 2006 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
good interview
by nickatt7 on Jan 22, 2006 3:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Development entitlements not a free lunch
by TomB on Jan 22, 2006 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The question is....
As he states...there aren't many options.
by ImissHENDU on Jan 22, 2006 5:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oakland-based companies
-- Dreyer's ice cream (now owned by Nestle, but still based in Oakland)
-- Mother's cookies
-- Kaiser Permanentne (non-profit HMO)
-- ANG Newspapers (publisher of Oakland Tribune and other Bay Area papers; a subsidiary of MediaNews Group)
Sure there are others. Help? Just thought this might be an interesting exercise.
by hunger on Jan 23, 2006 1:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Some more...
Clorox, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines,UPS, Fed Ex, Summitt/Alta Bates Medical, Port of Oakland (public but big and well heeled). Obviously the airport figures large in this list. Oh, and noteworthy Giants friends SBC (which has way more Oakland employees than SF ones) and KTVU Channel 2 (located in Oakland but part owner of Giants).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 23, 2006 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Clorox Company
by hunger on Jan 23, 2006 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I find something kind of disturbing...
by Poppy on Jan 23, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bleach is drinking water's best friend!
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 23, 2006 10:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Any more ????
by Rob on Jan 23, 2006 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Acme Cricket Supply?
- Amalgamated Thrown-Chair Repairs
- Al 'n' Lew's Franchise Movers
- Baseball-Related Osteopathic, Kinetic, Ergonomic, Bone, And Chiropractic Kneading, Squeezing, Teasing, And Debilitating-Injury Unguent Men
- Cap'n Hatte's Chemistry Shack
- Addlepated Clown Translation Services
- Bobby's Wrecking Balls
- I Can't Believe It's Not a Pitching Prospect!
by monkeyball on Jan 23, 2006 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your Black Muslim Bakery......
And the Hell's Angels, I forgot about them!
They could get a price break because they won't need as much parking space
by Rob on Jan 23, 2006 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your Black Muslim Bakery
by hunger on Jan 24, 2006 1:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Those aren't crickets, they're cash registers!
- The City of Oakland alone hosts 250 companies with 100 employees or more.
- Teams obviously draw from the larger area; EDD reports that in 2005 Alameda County hosted over 48,000 businesses employing 671,000 people
- The Economic Development Alliance for Business (those pinkos!) reports that the East Bay (Alameda+C2 counties) includes 23 firms employing 2,500 or more, and 97 emploring 1,000 or more.
- EDAB also observes that the East Bay labor force (i.e. ticket buyers) includes 1.3 million people versus the South Bay's 850,000. Over the past two years the East Bay's is growing while the South Bay's is shrinking. Oh, and the ones in the East Bay have more jobs--4.1% December unemployment versus South Bay's 4.6%. (I refer anyone interested to EDAB's excellent monthly econ analyses prepared with UCLA's prestigious Anderson School)
- EDD says the East Bay had 1586 firms with 100 or more employees in the latest data. The South Bay had 1774 such firms. With firms employing 250+ it's East Bay 453, South Bay 520. At the 500+ level it's East Bay 180, South Bay 212.
Conclusion: there is no particular reason Oakland can't be a lucrative business market for a ball team and its park.
(They're not booing...they're saying Louuuuuuu!)
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 23, 2006 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right across the free way
by BashBrothers89 on Jan 23, 2006 4:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
World Savings...the nation's best bank...
by ImissHENDU on Jan 23, 2006 7:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
World Savings
by hunger on Jan 24, 2006 1:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stop Casting Porosity!
by McFood on Jan 24, 2006 9:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 
















