Athletics Nation - Oakland mayoral candidate interviewsAn SB Nation blog for Oakland Athletics fanshttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/47025/an-fave.png2014-10-28T13:51:48-07:00http://www.athleticsnation.com/rss/stream/61101202014-10-28T13:51:48-07:002014-10-28T13:51:48-07:00Keeping the A's in Oakland: Libby Schaaf
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/wm5f4oam_rqy5iN1mPrO4Gr01o0=/0x56:1280x909/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/42925126/Libby_photo.0.0.JPG" />
</figure>
<p>AN speaks with Oakland City Councilmember and mayoral candidate Libby Schaaf regarding her views on the future of professional sports in Oakland.</p> <p>This is the fourth installment in our series featuring Oakland mayoral candidates and their stances in the upcoming November 2014 elections, discussing their feelings and policies most specifically regarding a new venue for the A's in Oakland.</p>
<p>Today's post is a writeup of my interview with Libby Schaaf, an Oakland native and current member of the Oakland City Council. Schaaf is a lawyer by trade, but has spent the last two decades of her career working in local politics, including a stint as one of then-Oakland mayor Jerry Brown's top aides.</p>
<p>My brief analysis of Schaaf's interview, before allowing her words to speak for themselves, is fairly simple. Schaaf is yet another candidate who seems to have a genuine interest in keeping Oakland's sports teams in town, and carries a pragmatic-enough mindset that she might be successful in doing so. That said, she is now the third (or even fourth) candidate to tell AN that she believes Howard Terminal is a viable site for a privately financed ballpark; her rationale is simply that it wouldn't be public money paying for the ballpark's construction, and that internal (and as-yet invisible) analyses conducted by private-sector Oakland powerhouses like Clorox CEO Don Knauss indicate the site is financially viable, contradicting the only information that, to date, is available to the public.</p>
<p>Schaaf is an Oakland native and, from the sound of it, has experienced her fair share of A's and Raiders games. She also seems to carry both appropriate interest and appropriate skepticism for the Coliseum City development, and a solid appreciation for the positive economic and developmental impact new sports venues can have on a city. She has experience in transit-oriented development, as she mentions below, and has worked for the Port of Oakland as well, giving her two backgrounds potentially useful for getting a ballpark done at either of the currently proposed sites.</p>
<p>Lastly, Schaaf is now the second candidate (after Dan Siegel) to indicate a clear preference for keeping the A's over the Raiders, should such a choice become necessary. Both candidates hold that position for exactly the right reason — the economic and cultural impact of a venue that hosts at least 80 events per year is vastly greater than that of a football stadium that might not host more than a dozen, and neither was shy in saying so.</p>
<p><span>Without further ado, here's our interview, edited only for clarity.</span></p>
<p><b>What are your thoughts on the recently completed lease agreement between the City of Oakland, the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, and the A's, and how do you feel about the process that took place in getting it done?</b></p>
<p>What we could've done better is had a better partnership with the county, and ensured lines of communication between the two governing bodies. We are the co-owners of the Coliseum site, after all.</p>
<p>There was some confusion about why the city decided not to show up for the votes, which was evidence of (a lack of communication).</p>
<p>There needed to be more transparency, where people felt like they had been kept informed throughout the negotiation. And again, we needed a better partnership with the county and the co-owners.</p>
<p>My other concern is that we never pit one team against another. Many of us had concerns about one particular team in the lease, because we never want to make our baseball team feel (like a second-class citizen).</p>
<p><b>What are your thoughts on the Coliseum City proposal?</b></p>
<p>I like the concept of a Coliseum-area development that captures the energy from sports stadiums and supports retail and hotels and other entertainment venues. <span>That said, I'm really scrutinizing the proposition for a football stadium with a retractable roof for the city with the best climate in the world.</span></p>
<p>I want to see whether (Mayor Quan's) team of developers really has the capacity to pull off this scale of development. <span>The idea that Oakland has not built other enterprises around our sports stadiums to capture that economic potential (is something we need to work on). </span></p>
<p>Realistically, I can't imagine that we're going to build a third venue <i>(editor's note: she's referring to the potential for a replacement for Oracle Arena)</i>. The existing arena will still be a great revenue generator as other, newer facilities (in San Francisco and San Jose) become much more expensive.</p>
<p><b>Do you see keeping the A's and Raiders as mutually exclusive? What are some of the challenges that go along with keeping both teams in the city?</b></p>
<p>There is enough room for both teams, and my clear priority is keeping both teams. But from an economic point of view, the A's have a larger economic benefit for Oakland that should always be kept in mind. They play more than 80 games a year, compared to 10. But I just want to be clear, I'm a very proud Oakland native; my parents were season-ticket holders for both the A's and the Raiders throughout my life.</p>
<p><b>Do you foresee infrastructure help ever coming from the City of Oakland if the A's and Raiders were willing to finance the construction of their actual venues?</b></p>
<p>It's absolutely appropriate for the city to invest in infrastructure improvements to support a development, particularly transportation improvements. That's what we've seen in other cities. It's appropriate because we will own those improvements in perpetuity.</p>
<p>It's not just physical improvements, either — we'd want to make sure to work with AC Transit and BART, make sure that infrastructure and service were both improved in conjunction with development of new sports venues.</p>
<p><b>Do you have specific, preferred sites for venues the A's?</b></p>
<p>I'm still excited about both potential venues for the A's (referring to Howard Terminal/Jack London Square and the current Coliseum site). I also recognize that the A's ownership has a renewed interest in the current Coliseum site, which is something we welcome and should support.</p>
<p>I was very involved in developing the Fruitvale BART transit village, and I'm very familiar with the partnership and coordination it takes to work with BART in developing sites with them. Many of us see a new Coliseum ballpark as having much better connectivity with the BART station.</p>
<p><span>I've also worked for the Port of Oakland as Director of Public Affairs, so </span><span>I'm also familiar with waterfront development, and </span><span>could bring a lot of skills to the table in terms of developing both of those sites. </span></p>
<p><b>Several analyses of the Howard Terminal sites estimate pre-venue construction costs as reaching into the low hundreds of millions. Do you see those figures as prohibitive?</b></p>
<p>Again, this is a development that private developers are pursuing. These are people that have done development on Oakland's waterfront. <span>(Clarifying): I'm referring to Don Knauss, and his ownership group, and my understanding is that their assessments of the site show different numbers.</span></p>
<p>That said, I will celebrate and facilitate whichever site keeps my Oakland A's in my hometown, especially with someone else's money.</p>
<p><b>Any final thoughts on your abilities as mayor, hypothetically, to keep your city's sports franchises in town?</b></p>
<p><span>Well, to bolster my Oakland A's cred, I grew up in a family that didn't eat blueberry muffins — we ate Vida Blue-berry muffins.</span></p>
<p>On a serious note, there is no reason that Oakland should not be able to keep its sports teams. This is one of the most exciting, vibrant, growing cities in the country, and our A's are such an integral part of our city's pride and our city's story. I'm excited that our ownership seems to be recognizing that. <span>I feel like this whole city is pulling for our A's, not just for a winning season but also that they may have a home worthy of our team's greatness.</span></p>
https://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/10/28/7073815/keeping-the-as-in-oakland-an-interview-with-oakland-mayoral-candidateLF942014-09-17T11:06:47-07:002014-09-17T11:06:47-07:00Keeping the A's in Oakland: Dan Siegel
<figure>
<img alt="Dan Siegel at a campaign event in January 2014." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/J1d9TXuT_QbXAu1skCmdD8CRGbQ=/5x0:2031x1351/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38756478/siegel2.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Dan Siegel at a campaign event in January 2014. | <a href='http://blog.oaklandxings.com/2014/01/dan-siegel-joins-mayoral-campaign/'>blog.oaklandxings.com</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>AN speaks with Oakland mayoral candidate and civil rights attorney Dan Siegel regarding his stances on professional sports in Oakland.</p> <p>This is the third installment in an (increasingly) extended series featuring Oakland mayoral candidates in the upcoming November 2014 elections, discussing their feelings and positions most specifically regarding a new venue for the A's in the City of Oakland.</p>
<p>Today, I've written up my interview with Dan Siegel, a longtime Oakland resident and civil rights attorney who served as Mayor Jean Quan's legal advisor until 2011, when he resigned in protest of the Mayor's administration's response to the Occupy Oakland process.</p>
<p>I'll let Mr. Siegel's words speak for themselves, just as soon as I highlight two stances he took. So far, Siegel is the only candidate who has gone on record as saying that, if forced to make a choice, he'd favor keeping the A's in the city over the Raiders, simply because of the economic benefits you can create with 85-ish annual events as opposed to 10 at a football stadium. It's an obvious stance to take, but given the way the City and County have repeatedly bowed at the Raiders' will over the last two decades, it's a very important one.</p>
<p>Mr. Siegel did bring up Howard Terminal as a potential ballpark site, but seemed to understand that it's questionably realistic at best. He also floated an idea of a truly downtown ballpark somewhere within a few blocks of the Broadway corridor, likely north of Broadway and between 12th and 19th Streets.</p>
<p>All in all, he seems like a solid candidate who knows the issues and is appropriately skeptical of projects like Coliseum City.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that the following is a transcribed phone call, edited for clarity only. Amendments in parentheses are my words, while everything else is Mr. Siegel's (though not always 100 percent verbatim).</p>
<p><b>What are your thoughts on the Oakland Coliseum lease process that recently wrapped up after over a year of negotiation, resulting in a 10-year lease for the A's at the Coliseum?</b></p>
<p>To me, it was a terrible process. I think it really demonstrates a lack of focus, and really competence, in City Hall. It was important to get the deal done, but also important to get it done in a way that the city and county and the A's were on the same page.</p>
<p>It seems like there was an agreement that was reached, and announced with great fanfare. I believe the motivation (to step back from the deal agreement) was likely the article in the East Bay Express that it wasn't such a great deal, and the city reneged on the deal without getting county representatives to agree with them.</p>
<p>It created a dynamic where and MLB was jumping in and making threats...I'm just glad it's final.</p>
<p><b>What are your thoughts on the Coliseum City project, and the EIR that was recently released, providing a bit more detail as to the scope of the project?</b></p>
<p>I've followed it for a while. It seems like a lot of wishful thinking without having people willing to make the required investments. From my own point of view, I want to separate the issue of that whole grand development scheme from what we're going to do to ensure both the Athletics and Raiders stay in Oakland. The goal is to have two new, separate facilities.</p>
<p><b>What are your thoughts on entrusting either the Wolff/Fisher ownership group, the Davis ownership group, or both with developing the land at the Coliseum complex?</b></p>
<p>I don't know a lot about the Davis group and what resources it has. I certainly know a lot about Wolff and Fisher. These are people who have a lot of resources, and a lot of access to resources. I think (Wolff and Fisher's) interest is real and one that should be supported.</p>
<p><b>What's the ideal scenario for the future of Oakland sports?</b></p>
<p>The Raiders get a new stadium at the present location. It works for football, the nature of football, the relatively small number of games, the fanbase is spread out, and the enjoyment people get out of parties and tailgating is great. It strikes me that a football stadium in the middle of a huge parking lot with freeway access (is ideal).</p>
<p>If I had my druthers, the baseball stadium would be downtown. As a lifelong baseball fan, I've made it a point to go to cities around the country with downtown parks, like Houston and Denver. I love the environment. I was really disappointed when (then-Oakland mayor) Jerry Brown and (then-City Manager Robert Bobb) had that dispute (in the early 2000s) about being able to put a baseball park where the Forest City development is now (near Telegraph Ave. and 19th St.).</p>
<p><b>OK — What downtown location(s) do you have in mind?</b></p>
<p>I can imagine Howard Terminal. I know there are lots of environmental and regulatory issues, especially because of the BART tracks (the BART alignment near Howard Terminal is difficult to work with from an expansion standpoint). Maybe slightly west of where Forrest city is, she did toward downtown. One of the things I'd be thrilled to do as mayor is make sure all the zoning, regulatory and, if necessary, eminent domain issues go smoothly (were we to build a new downtown ballpark).</p>
<p>That said, I don't think the city is in a position to dictate to owners what sites to build at.</p>
<p><b>Could you also foresee infrastructure help coming from the City of Oakland, if needed?</b></p>
<p>Yes, I could. A BART station (at Howard Terminal) is justified in terms of public investment. It would give easier access to Jack London Square and facilitate the development of residential housing in the area. I would also anticipate buy-in from BART and Alameda County.</p>
<p>In terms of the environmental cost, I would want to study it and not make a commitment right now. I want to look at the scope of who benefits. If the only beneficiaries would be a private ownership group for the team, that would be harder to justify.</p>
<p><b>What can you say about the potential for having to choose between the A's and the Raiders as the professional sports franchise to keep in Oakland?</b></p>
<p>You would have to say that the A's are more important than the Raiders. That's kind of a cold assessment, but it's based on the fact that at the very minimum, you have 81 home games. What's the ability to impact the local economy with 81 games plus exhibition plus postseason? That's substantially more than you can do with the football stadium where you have eight regular-season games, and one or two exhibitions.</p>
<p>If a choice had to be made, the A's would get first preference. I'd like to figure out a way that would avoid having to make that choice. I'd like to think we're a long way from having to make that choice…There's lots of land at the Coliseum area, especially when you factor in the conversation about property along 880, west of the freeway and across from the current Coliseum site.</p>
<p>Again, it seems like having two teams should be in everyone's interest. Even though the baseball season has more dates in it, it doesn't last all year. It would be great to also have football there lasting at least through December. As Mayor, I'd be seriously involved in the efforts to keep both teams.</p>
<p><b>Closing thoughts? </b></p>
<p>I think sports teams are an important part of the urban landscape. It's certainly valuable to a city like Oakland to be the home of the A's and Raiders and previously the Warriors. I think there's a lot of credibility that goes with that, and there's both actual and potential economic value. I'm confident as an individual and leader in this community (that we can) try to keep as many of the teams as possible, and do what can be done given budget constraints.</p>
<p><i>Thanks, Dan, for speaking with AN! </i></p>
https://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/9/17/6336943/keeping-the-as-in-oakland-an-interview-with-oakland-mayoral-candidateLF942014-08-21T09:30:02-07:002014-08-21T09:30:02-07:00Keeping the A's in Oakland: Joe Tuman
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/E__p7wzgK_BNYSJjttQQsfu1QiA=/0x147:1351x1048/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/37324686/Joe_Tuman_Headshot_2.0.jpg" />
</figure>
<p>An interview with Oakland mayoral candidate Joe Tuman regarding his views on the future of the A's in Oakland.</p> <p> </p>
<p>This is the second installment in what is becoming an extended series featuring Oakland mayoral candidates in the upcoming November 2014 elections, discussing their feelings and positions most specifically regarding a new venue for the A's in the City of Oakland.</p>
<p>This installment features Joe Tuman, a UC Berkeley graduate and Oakland resident and current professor at San Francisco State University. As a professor, he teaches government, politics, and constitutional law. I really appreciate Mr. Tuman's participation in the interview, and hope that by series' end, we give Oakland voters and others with a vested interest in the A's stadium situation a good idea of who to support if this issue is important to them.</p>
<p>I'll let Mr. Tuman's responses to my questions stand on their own, but I will add my two cents beforehand: he seems like a qualified candidate and principled academic whose lack of substantial prior involvement in the crazy world of Oakland politics could serve him well. That said — and this problem is hardly unique to him — he seems a bit too confident and somewhat unrealistic about the prospect of multiple privately financed stadiums in Oakland, namely for the A's and Raiders. Mr. Tuman also supports a new baseball venue at Howard Terminal in Jack London Square, but seems to recognize that such a plan is more of a pipe dream than anything else.</p>
<p>Building two venues on the existing Coliseum lot footprint won't be easy, on multiple levels. One is a space constraint. While there's certainly enough room for a football stadium and a baseball stadium, there might not be enough room for both plus the necessary infrastructure and development necessary to actually finance their construction. The other is the financing itself — the finances of that site's development don't quite pencil out if the revenue is split between two parties, such as Mark Davis and the Wolff/Fisher group.</p>
<p>The bottom line, though, is that Mr. Tuman is yet another candidate who seems quite set on keeping both the A's and the Raiders in town. Use his answers below to see if you think he'll be up to the task.</p>
<p>
<link href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3608425/mustreads.css" rel="stylesheet">
</p>
<p><b>A painful 15-month process to secure a new lease for the A's at the Oakland Coliseum recently wrapped up after plenty of controversy and back-and-forth. What are your thoughts on the new lease, and the process that took place in getting it approved?</b></p>
<p>Recent negotiations between the A's and the JPA reflect our current elected officials' lack of a cohesive strategy for planning future facilities that can keep our teams in Oakland. After 14 months of negotiations with Lew Wolff of the A's, the Oakland City Council voted to make last-minute changes to the lease deal - reopening and threatening a lease that would keep the A's here after 2015.</p>
<p>When the city council raised concerns about the suitability of the lease extension in the 11<sup>th</sup> hour - either because JPA members failed to inform council members about the lease or because council members just were not interested - it reflected poorly on our city. This distinctly minor-league approach to management demonstrated a lack of professionalism.</p>
<p>Thankfully, it all worked out in the end, and the 10-year lease was signed.</p>
<p>But the truth is that a lease extension is not a long-term solution to keeping the A's in Oakland. Instead of dealing with a sustainable and permanent solution, city elected leaders grasp for whatever short-term fix they can find. We've already seen how such an orientation badly serves Oakland when applied to public safety. Temporary federal grants to hire police officers, or one-time money for CHP officers to patrol International Boulevard fail to provide permanent staffing for police. Similarly, a lease extension is only a temporary arrangement-and one that can easily be circumvented if the A's find another home.</p>
<p>Every modern sports team needs modern facilities that provide a more enhanced fan experience, opportunities for revitalization of surrounding areas, and a close connection between the sports franchise and the community. Think AT&T Park. Mutually beneficial relationships between teams and their communities lead to community benefits such as jobs, economic activity, and community pride.</p>
<p><b>You mention Oakland's sports teams in your campaign platform - how important is it to keep the A's and Raiders in town, and how would you work to leverage economic benefit from their presence in Oakland?</b></p>
<p>I think that keeping both the A's and the Raiders is very important for Oakland. These franchises are part of our local history and identity. They offer a positive counterpoint (e.g., the A's continue to find ways to be successful despite a limited payroll) to the traditional narrative of this city (one which, sadly, is mostly about crime). Their existence creates the opportunity for some employment. Their success is also pivotal to helping Oakland become more of a point of destination-a city to visit. With the proper ballpark for the A's and stadium for the Raiders, there is more opportunity for Oakland to realize some growth in seasonal jobs, sourcing of new sales tax dollars, and the potential for new room-rate-tax dollars if more hotels are built in town (that will happen if I am Mayor!). Bringing teams and fans into Oakland to stay overnight can also create a positive multiplier effect for Oakland restaurants and bars.</p>
<p>At a different level, it's also worth noting that losing these teams would negatively effect how Oakland residents feel about our city. When I talk to residents about this issue, I always pay attention to the exact words they use to describe their feelings about losing either of these teams. They have used the same words to describe the impending move of the Warriors. One word that stands out in their statements is: "rejection." Having a team leave is a form of rejection-almost like when a lover or spouse leaves you for someone else, implying that this someone is also better. We don't need more self-esteem problems in Oakland. This is enough-all by itself-to make me prioritize keeping the A's and the Raiders here.</p>
<p><b>Do you have preferred sites for A's and Raiders venues? What about those sites is attractive to you?</b></p>
<p>The frugal side of me says that the logical venue for both teams is to remain within the Coliseum complex footprint, with a new stand-alone ballpark for the A's, while the Raiders remain within the Coliseum, remodeled or rebuilt to whatever specs they wish. The logic of being there is that the parking infrastructure and the BART station (two big challenges for other venues) are already in place.</p>
<p>The other side of me, however, would love to see the A's relocate to a ballpark at JLS within the old Howard Terminal site. A waterfront ballpark would help complete the development of JLS, and frankly be a better bet for supporting existing businesses and developing new retail outlets, restaurants and bars. There is considerable upside for the city and the A's with this location. Nevertheless, it would not be without some challenges.</p>
<p>For starters, any deal to get the Howard Terminal site means that efforts must be made to reach out to Schnizter Steel, which is on the other side of the Howard Terminal, and which owns some land that is currently within the rendition/plans for the new ballpark. Additionally, we would have to consider the larger port facility and the reality that a lot of trucks have to get into and out of the Port on a daily basis. There would likely need to be some kind of buffer between port traffic congestion and pedestrian traffic coming to/leaving from the ballpark. Moreover, as there is no current BART station at JLS - and we would not want thousands of cars driving into that area for games - it would be necessary and appropriate to plan for ways that fans might use existing mass transit to get to get close to the ballpark and then walk the rest of the distance (ideally, past many existing and new retail shops, restaurants and bars). For this, I would consider trying to source dollars to build a street level light rail service, perhaps running from the downtown near the 12<sup>th</sup> Street Oakland City Center BART station, down Broadway, under the overpass and into JLS.</p>
<p><b>Do you see keeping the Raiders and keeping the A's as mutually exclusive? If so, which team would you prefer to keep in the City and why? If not, how can you keep both teams in town without diluting the financial incentive for owners like Lew Wolff to build venues and develop around them?</b></p>
<p>Keeping both is not a mutually exclusive situation. Ideally, as indicated above, I think we need separate facilities for both. Keeping the teams here - especially the A's - means that individuals like Mr. Wolff should ideally be offered an opportunity to bid for developing some of the retail or hotels or property that would go up around the new facilities.</p>
<p><b>As Mayor, what steps would you take to ensure the A's stay in Oakland? Are you open to the prospect of any public funding for a new ballpark? What opportunities do you see for infrastructure development concurrent with the construction of a stadium?</b></p>
<p>I think I covered this in response to the third above. Let me add that this must be part of a cohesive strategy that is also tied to economic development outcomes for the city. I have been a fan of the A's for many decades, and I was a season ticket holder for the Raiders before they moved to Los Angeles. I grew up idolizing players like Ken Stabler, Cliff Branch, Fred Biletnikoff, Art Shell, Gene Upsaw and others-back in an era when players actually were often members of the communities in which they played (remember Uppie's bar in JLS?). In spite of this, free agency for players, and ownership participation in league revenues, lucrative TV contracts and brand merchandizing cured me of any sentimentality about professional sports a long time ago. The reality is that staying or going will <i>always </i>be a business decision for professional teams. It should be no less for the city. If it pencils out for them to stay, it has to pencil out for the city as well. In our current environment I would not commit city dollars to the construction of a new ballpark or stadium; how could I when we cannot even afford enough police officers to keep the city safe? What I will do, however, is commit to help make the planning and zoning for new facilities efficient and timely. I will also help bring together a coalition of local leaders to:</p>
<p><span> </span>-Privately develop and finance a new stand-alone baseball facility for the Oakland A's, either within the existing coliseum complex footprint, or at the Howard Terminal site in Jack London Square. I would welcome and invite Mr. Wolff to participate in the development of areas near the new stadium.</p>
<p><span> </span>-Privately develop and finance a new football stadium for the Oakland Raiders at the Coliseum complex.</p>
<p>This is absolutely doable, and if it is approached the correct way, it can benefit all parties.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Anything else you'd like to add regarding your hopes and thoughts for a new baseball stadium in Oakland?</b></p>
<p>Oakland needs new leaders ready to step up to the plate to work with the professionalism and dedication that our citizens deserve to keep our historic sports teams where they belong - in Oakland.</p>
<p><i><br></i></p>
<p><i>The next segment will be with Dan Siegel, a former staffer of current Mayor Jean Quan's and a formidable candidate in his own right. Stay tuned, and thanks again to Mr. Tuman for participating! </i></p>
https://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/8/21/6052031/keeping-the-as-in-oakland-an-interview-with-joe-tumanLF942014-07-16T09:02:56-07:002014-07-16T09:02:56-07:00New Oakland Ballpark: Interview with Bryan Parker
<figure>
<img alt="Oakland Port Commissioner and mayoral candidate Bryan Parker takes in a game at the Coliseum" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fmRoaMv1GLy8WwBmezEGNFj9gok=/0x372:557x743/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/35679348/Bryan_Parker.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Oakland Port Commissioner and mayoral candidate Bryan Parker takes in a game at the Coliseum | <a href='http://www.bryanparker.org'>Courtesy of Bryan Parker</a></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oakland Port Commissioner and mayoral candidate Bryan Parker knows a fair amount about Howard Terminal. He wants to keep the A's in town.</p> <p>If you're reading this blog, chances are you've followed the A's stadium saga over the years. From Blue Ribbon Committees to San Jose to Fremont to now mentions of San Antonio and Montreal and everywhere in between. You know, I know, it's still in flux.</p>
<p>One day I was listening to the A's flagship station and they were talking about the A's stadium situation, Coliseum City, Howard Terminal and the various possibilities. Port Commissioner and Oakland mayoral candidate <a target="_blank" href="http://bryanparker.org">Bryan Parker</a> called in and threw down for the Port of Oakland site Howard Terminal.</p>
<p>I reached out to Mr. Parker and we sat down last week to chat about the A's stadium.</p>
<p>If there are two words that describe Parker's philosophy, they would be "creative" and "urgent." The urgency applies not just with the A's new 10-year lease at O.Co Coliseum, but also with immediately moving forward on a plan to keep the A's and the Raiders. The creativity comes in crafting the long term plan.</p>
<p>Parker cares about keeping the A's for many reasons. He grew up in Stockton, going to A's and Raiders games as a young child. His mom went to college with a future Raiders player and he kept going to games as a Cal student and Oakland resident.</p>
<p>He believes that there is an intrinsic value in keeping the A's, not just from an economic standpoint. "There is a soft economic impact and emotional ties. Economists can put a monetary value to goodwill and what it means to a city. The A's are part of the identity of Oakland." Of course, the hard economic consequences of loss of sales taxes, loss of jobs, loss of game day revenue, and loss of national exposure and money being spent in Oakland weigh heavily into that value.</p>
<p>In the course of the recent lease talks, A's owner Lew Wolff has emphasized that he is not looking at the Howard Terminal site as a possibility. He in fact called it "worse than a nonstarter." I wouldn't expect him to say anything different while trying to negotiate a lease at a different site, lest Oakland politicians start trying to use that for leverage. Remember, Wolff said the same thing about staying in Oakland, but recently both he and Selig have openly talked about staying in the East Bay.</p>
<p>Howard Terminal is Port of Oakland waterfront land that is no longer being used for port activities. The Port of Oakland (Parker being one of the votes) voted to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a group of investors called Oakland Waterfront Ballpark, LLC ("OWB"). OWB is headed by Mike Ghielmetti who is responsible for the <a href="http://brooklynbasin.com/" target="_blank">Brooklyn Basin</a> hi-rise condo and public parkland development on the Oakland waterfront.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/imported_assets/2288748/20131216__1217oakstadium_2_JPG.jpg"><img alt="20131216__1217oakstadium_2_jpg_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/imported_assets/2288748/20131216__1217oakstadium_2_JPG_medium.jpg" width="600"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/imported_assets/2288748/20131216__1217oakstadium_2_JPG.jpg"></a><i style="text-align: right;">Renderings of a possible Howard Terminal ballpark </i></p>
<p>From his unique view as a Port Commissioner, Parker is decidedly in favor of the possibilities of developing Howard Terminal. "You look at other waterfront sites in the U.S., not just across the Bay but Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati. They have taken areas that are sketchy to say the least and revitalized these areas. The benefit of that is you can take it from a sports experience to an entertainment experience. When you do that people start coming down to an area to spend money." As a mayoral candidate his platform focuses on alleviating poverty by bringing more economic opportunities to Oakland, and reducing crime through reducing poverty. After losing his sister to murder in her 20's, he knows firsthand about the terrible impacts of violence and crime on a community, and he is a genuine believer in the jobs that a new waterfront development can create and how those can positively impact the people of a community.</p>
<p>From my observations, stadiums like <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.federalbaseball.com/">Nationals</a> Park and Turner Field (both on Coliseum-like sites) have done nothing to their surrounding areas. I can't speak from personal experience vis-a-vis Baltimore and Cincinnati, but I have spent a great deal of time at PNC Park in Pittsburgh and AT&T Park in San Francisco. I also saw those areas before those parks were built. The surrounding areas are transformed; where there was literally nothing there are now dozens of lively businesses, hi-rise condo buildings, offices, and the like.</p>
<p>I asked him if the Coliseum is the path of least resistance. "You can call it the path of least resistance, but no one is coming up with the money to pay for a new stadium [at the Coliseum site]. The Raiders only have $400-$600 million, and they likely need close to $1 billion to build a new stadium."</p>
<p>They are working on raising that money. If and when it's raised and the Raiders still want to stay in Oakland, it likely will be an easy decision to sell them the Coliseum complex, or at least part of it.</p>
<p>Meanwhile OWB is putting in money to study the Howard Terminal site for a ballpark. Given their experience with Brooklyn Basin, they are familiar with the unique and complicated alphabet soup of waterfront development in California. Parker mentioned that Ghielmetti and company are currently sinking money into studying clearance of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) hurdles. They are trying to get to a clear handle on what exactly it would cost to clean up the site and build the park.</p>
<p>However, OWB is not a Lew Wolff group, and Wolff owns the team. So what's the endgame? Would Wolff be convinced to build at Howard Terminal, essentially becoming a partner in a massive stadium and surrounding development? "After seeing the hard numbers, maybe he would be convinced regarding the viability [of a Howard Terminal stadium], or the group would pay such a price that would be compelling to have the team brought to sale." Of course, the third, unspoken scenario is that OWB finds the costs prohibitive and re-engages with the Port on other possible waterfront uses.</p>
<p>That being said, the fact that they are actually studying this now and are hoping and preparing to make an offer to Lew Wolff would put both Wolff and Selig into a corner. If Oakland has a site that is proven to be viable and the cash to make it happen through a willing buyer or co-developer, MLB likely would want to build there. Selig has not been shy to help push through a sale of a team in the best interests of baseball, and as Parker says, "Bud Selig has been a lever to help Lew Wolff be reasonable" in his dealings with Oakland. Of course the first step is OWB actually coming up with some concrete numbers and bringing us closer to a decision.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Parker doesn't rule out the Coliseum site. He believes with a little bit of creativity, perhaps tearing down Oracle Arena, both the Raiders and the A's could fit there and make it work. It would take creative solutions with "Oakland's business partners" as he views them. If the Raiders raised the money, and the A's decided that they had the money, a Coliseum City could be a possibility.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/imported_assets/2288766/upload-7663216022018094188.jpg"><img width="600" alt="Upload-7663216022018094188_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/imported_assets/2288766/upload-7663216022018094188_medium.jpg"></a><br><i>One rendering of Coliseum City (commissioned by City of Oakland)</i></p>
<p>In either scenario, Parker did not completely rule out any type of public funding for the development. His studies consistently show that 60% of Oakland residents are actually<i> in favor</i> of public funding for new A's and Raiders stadiums. That was interesting news. However, he also was forthright that the city does have bigger priorities, and perhaps in such a scenario the city would put in for transit or infrastructure upgrades that benefit the teams and the city as a whole rather than directly help pay for the stadium.</p>
<p>But before we jump 50 steps forward in the creative dream scenario, we need to get back to that urgent part.</p>
<p>The Coliseum lease will be voted on again today. The previous no-show for the vote "made Lew Wolff livid, to say the least." said Parker. "When you have an owner that has talked about moving the team, and you don't show up, that doesn't accomplish anything."</p>
<p>Although Selig may have been an unlikely ally to the City of Oakland through this process, from his recent quotes (referring to the lease negotiations as "tortures of hell"), Oakland should move quickly. Especially because the current lease on the table is better in every way than the previous lease: More rent money and new scoreboards already put it leaps and bounds ahead of the previous version.</p>
<p>The current lease (as drafted and publicly released) includes a clause obligating the A's to negotiate in good faith on a new stadium at the Coliseum complex but not anywhere else. Of course, not having a contractual obligation does not mean that you won't negotiate if presented with something attractive, and the lease also allows termination if the A's find any site anywhere in Oakland so it does contemplate other possibilities. Now it's on the city to get this done and actually work with its business partners in the A's and give them a reason to stay. It is impossible to make any progress on a new stadium without this lease in place.</p>
<p>Parker doesn't see the Raiders and A's in a true conflict. If the money is there, the details will be worked out.</p>
<p>The ideal timeline to keep Oakland's teams is that over the next year or two, the Raiders come up with that last $200-$400 million they need, and the Port and OWB get a clear handle on the cost of a new Howard Terminal ballpark-plus development. As Parker said, "It would be a travesty if we didn't do everything we could to keep them. You cut out part of your soul."</p>
<pre><i>Note: I am not an Oakland resident and this is not a political endorsement. I just want the A's to have a permanent home in the Bay Area and hope that this sheds some light on the possibilities.</i></pre>
https://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/7/16/5899451/howard-terminal-coliseum-new-oakland-ballpark-bryan-parkerBilly Frijoles