Three Teams, Three Strikes, Oakland Could be Out
How city politics might cost Oakland its last sports team.
Well if one team left, then you could say, that’s just a bad break for the city of Oakland. And then if another team left, perhaps you could say it’s just not in the cards. But now, with another team — the Oakland A’s— poised to find another city to play ball, perhaps it’s time for Oakland’s leadership to take a good, long look in the mirror.
Recently, Major League Baseball (MLB) released a damning statement to Oakland and the rest of the world: MLB “is concerned with the rate of progress with local officials and other stakeholders in Oakland. The A’s have worked very hard to advance the new ballpark in downtown Oakland for the last four years, investing significant resources while facing multiple roadblocks,” they continued.
Later in the statement, they say that the Oakland Coliseum site— that I grew up watching McGwire and Canseco in as a kid— is not a viable option for the future of baseball. As a result, they have instructed the A’s to “begin exploring other markets while they continue to pursue a waterfront ballpark in Oakland.”
Putting aside my feeling that I think the Coliseum is indeed a viable option for the ballpark: connected to BART, rife with development potential in the space around the airport and current footprint, and all kinds of room to grow, I do respect the A’s vision of creating a waterfront park like the one the Giants built more than 20 years ago in San Francisco. I see the potential. I’ve had an office in North Beach, San Francisco for the last 20 years. The place where the Giants play ball now was once a shoddy community that no one went to except to hit discount golf balls at an old, but lovely, driving range that sat right off the waterway that runs through China Basin. Oh yeah, Mission Rock— the day and night club— was also there. That spot played host to some of the best all night parties the city ever saw.
But when the time came for San Francisco to realize its potential and harness the growth, the city and its officials didn’t blink once at the opportunity to turn China Basin into the footprint you see today. Restaurants, grocery stores, boutique shops, office buildings, and a bustling economy grew up around the stadium once known as Pac Bell Park. Seemingly out of thin air, the visionary leadership of San Francisco’s local officials and stakeholders built yet another flagship location to decorate their growing city.
In Oakland, in the last three years, two teams have left. First the Warriors, who won their first championship after more than 40 years of playing at the Coliseum site, then the Oakland Raiders, who returned in 1995 after a ten year stint in Los Angeles, only to leave again for Las Vegas after refusing to suffer the politics of Oakland.
When the announcement was made by Major League Baseball that the A’s should begin exploring other sites, Raiders owner Mark Davis, son of legendary Oakland champion and owner Al Davis, said quite bluntly, "I hate to say it's expected, but it's expected," he said. "It's what we went through...the government up there, is just not capable of putting a deal together that's win-win. And that's all you ever look for is win-win."
If, in Oakland, there existed a vision of what the city is to become, if there existed a plan for how we would go about achieving that vision, and teams saw that vision and chose to go elsewhere, then I could understand why a citizen of Oakland might be upset about one, two, now maybe three teams leaving. But when all you get is a hard time for trying to grow and for trying to develop, and a city council that as recently as last year, filed a law suit against the A’s for pursuing their interests in a downtown stadium, then how can you not agree with Mark Davis?
Before leaving, the Warriors never even truly entertained the idea of building their future in Oakland. Even though real estate was cheaper and there was an enormous opportunity to grow with Oakland, they chose to sink their future into an arena that is probably the least accessible arena site I’ve ever visited. In building the Chase Center, Joe Lacob— owner of the Warriors— was quite clear starting in 2012: “We intend to build the most spectacular arena in the country, on a truly iconic site,” he said. No matter the accessibility issues or the ultimate cost to the average fan, they made the Chase choice without ever considering Oakland as an option. Or could it be that they knew that negotiating and building in Oakland was an impossibility that they chose not to struggle with? Perhaps, in retrospect, they were smart?
And then there is the Raiders. As they renegotiated their Coliseum lease and explored the possibility of building a new stadium in Oakland, the JPA that runs the Coliseum (a partnership between the County of Alameda and the City of Oakland) chose to nearly triple their rent, saying they need to pay Oakland if they want to stay in Oakland. Where was the negotiation strategy? Where was the leadership?
But before all that, the 2015 coup de grace: Coliseum City. About six years ago, it was billed as the premiere residential and sports complex of the East Bay. Finally, a plan had emerged from the city leaders to build out the Coliseum site so that all the teams could have state of the art complexes and the surrounding residents could experience the massive growth that comes with year round sports, residential, and marketplace expansion. But when it came time to reveal the plan, Oakland discovered there was no plan and that Coliseum City was simply a pipe dream.
In my opinion, when Coliseum City died, the idea that Oakland leaders could actually plan for a 21st century economy died too. It’s time for us to revamp the visionary leadership of the those that brought these teams here in the first place. We look at the loss of the teams now, but fail to remember that the leaders of yesterday were able to paint such a compelling picture of Oakland, that they lured all three teams to the small city by the Bay. They got businessmen to believe in the power of Oakland. Can we make that so again?
Oakland is already taking a familiar posture as it relates to the money it will pay for the Howard Terminal development. The headlines all say that the new stadium will cost Oakland $855 million as though the city simply is going to write a check to help kick in the dough needed to build it. That’s a huge oversimplification and a short-sided way to look at the proposed financing.
I get it. There’s a lot is wrapped up in this stadium deal— lots of opinions and certainly lots of money. But let’s not make the mistake of pitting baseball against homelessness or development against equity. In this case, true negotiation is about finding a balance that promotes equity and gets us closer to the vision of the city we want Oakland to become. If there is an opportunity for hundreds of millions in tax revenue, I want every key stakeholder to sit down with a pen and pad to truly understand the deal and how it can benefit Oakland. What I don’t want is political grandstanding by people who refuse to add and subtract and make smart investments on behalf of the city. I’ve seen enough of that and it has not been good for Oakland.
At a very high level…
The $855 million in question would come from tax revenue generated by the stadium and the surrounding properties. The A’s are projecting the revenue will be around $955 million and they want Oakland to direct $855 million of that money to pay for the stadium over the next 45 years. As far as I can tell, any money over the $855 million is the city’s revenue to keep and leverage, and there is no adjustment for inflation or any other shifts in cost.
It’s an investment opportunity that should be weighed out by city leadership on the grounds of what it can do for the city, not one that should be demonized because our officials don’t understand it. The questions we should be asking are can that parcel generate that much revenue? What other elements can we add to the surrounding area that will help improve the Oakland experience and help us achieve the vision for Oakland we are fighting for? And finally— even though the deal is complex— could it be good for Oakland in the way that Pac Bell Park was good for San Francisco— and can we do a better job, with less undeveloped real estate, than they did in San Francisco?
I am not here to defend the A’s as though they have an unquestionable history of doing what’s right for Oakland. Since 2000, under front office executive Billy Beane’s leadership, they have let slip away just about every major talent that could have helped win a World Series ring— Marcus Semien and Yoenis Cespedes are among a recent few. And, to boot, they have threatened to leave Oakland more times than I can recall. Their moves, and the city of Oakland’s negotiation tactics, over the years, have left me dumfounded in many cases. This is a story with lots of nuance, and that’s why I want to encourage everyone involved to do the math— and to do it publicly. If the deal is bad for Oakland, then we should not move forward, but if the deal can be good for Oakland, then why not explore the possibilities?
The Raiders, the Warriors, and the A’s are as much a part of the legacy of Oakland as the Tribune Building or Lake Merritt or even McClymonds High School, yet we treat them like heartless developers who only want to gentrify our city and milk it of all its money. Is there no room to invest in community and to also invest in equitable growth?
Take a good look at our city. Homeowners and parcel owners pay over $1,600 in annual city and school taxes, yet gunshots ring freely in East and West Oakland neighborhoods and our poorest communities are lined with illegal dumping, human feces and waste. Crime is going through the roof again, and the school system is in a war with itself about district schools vs. charter schools. All this, while (on average) seventy percent of our Black and Brown students can’t do math or read on grade level. And the union and corporate forces that could be working in concert to repair our greatest challenges, remain at odds, waiting for the next opportunity to clash.
As we spend time quarreling, we are losing Oakland and losing the history that made this great city. We are progressives fighting about who is the most progressive. If you are a local official or key stakeholder, as the last ball club considers whether or not to leave or stay, hopefully you are taking note of this moment. Who do you stand for: Oakland or yourself? We have all the potential to do better.
Three Teams, Three Strikes, Oakland Could be Out
I have been more/less been opposed to the Howard Terminal project, but I really appreciate how thorough you were in this piece. You were very fair in framing the stakes and reputations of both sides and it shows that you've been following this for a long time and that it means a lot to you. Loved reading... Please keep it up.