Not necessarily new news, but it took 6 months for it to finally come out, but it appears that MLB rejected Wolff's proposed San Jose ballpark plan at Cisco Field back on June 17, one day before San Jose turned around and sued the league in what was then seen as a somewhat surprising move of biting the hand they wanted to feed them.
It appears the league had some very big misgivings about the specifics of the plan and San Jose's ability to follow through on its parts. And it also appears that there was some reluctance to go with a plan that was majority privately financed in an era when most cities seem willing to pony up some level of funding to support their teams directly (and thanks to the Braves and Cobb County we're also apparently coming into an era when Camden style parks are going to start requesting those publicly funded midlife upgrades to keep up with newer playpens). To say nothing of the outright replacements on the horizon in Tampa and Anaheim that MLB is looking to extract some measure of public money from.
Where this leaves the A's though is still up the creek without a paddle. Oakland's disjointed plans at Coliseum City and the long stalled even more expensive plans at Howard Terminal are similarly reliant on almost entirely being funded by the private sector. As such they wouldn't be any more appealing to MLB financially than San Jose was, to say nothing of Coliseum City having been separately roundly rejected by the league. Fremont is long dead having been killed by NIMBY's. And no other options have appeared in the east bay outside Oakland. All the while MLB has arranged only 2 years on the A's current lease before the A's can bolt (which was 3 years less than Wolff was requesting from the Coliseum Authority).
One has to wonder in light of the rejection of San Jose, to what end did MLB arrange such a short lease with no plans firmly in place in Oakland or the east bay...