A’s future unclear, city may spend big near site
Councilwoman: ‘Disingenuous’ to say infrastructure project top priority
The billion-dollar question in Oakland — whether the A’s are actually moving into a new ballpark and building thousands of homes near the harbor — remains unanswered.
In the meantime, the city wants to start spending $259 million in state grant money intended to support the roughly $12 billion proposed development at Howard Terminal, even as its future remains in limbo.
And while city officials insist the money would be spent wisely on long-needed projects — benefiting West Oakland even if negotiations with the A’s fall apart — the timing has struck some in the community as odd.
“It is disingenuous to say this project is what’s most needed in District 3,” said City Councilwoman Carroll Fife, who represents West Oakland and suggested the projects would prioritize certain infrastructure to sweeten a deal with private enterprise. “No one is over there at Howard Terminal right now.”
The A’s, eager to leave the Coliseum in East Oakland when its lease expires in 2024, are asking to build a 35,000-seat, state-of-theart ballpark, 3,000 housing units, hundreds of hotel rooms and commercial and retail space on port land that hasn’t been used as a marine cargo terminal
in almost a decade. The property primarily functions as a staging ground for truckers entering and exiting the port.
The new development would be sandwiched between Jack London Square’s tourist entertainment draws and the ninth busiest container port in the country — a near continuous operation with trucks and trains in and out — as well as the busy Nimitz freeway roaring nearby.
Although the A’s promise to privately finance the $1 billion stadium, and the housing and commercial development, the team wants the city to improve the streets, sidewalks, lighting and other infrastructure in the area, so residents and A’s fans will have a smoother, safer path to their homes and baseball games on foot, as well as by bicycles, cars and other transit.
The funding in question comes via the Port of Oakland from a grant
awarded by the California State Transportation Agency with no strings attached. If the city and port formalize an agreement to share the money, officials could begin renovating areas between Embarcadero West, Eighth Street, Oak Street and Mandela Parkway — city blocks that contain businesses, homes and transit stops north of Howard Terminal.
City Council members are expected to discuss the grant funding Monday at a life enrichment committee meeting. Officials had acknowledged in September that Oakland’s end of the stadium deal could end up costing much more than previously anticipated.
To be clear, none of these state-funded renovations would take place at the eventual A’s stadium or the new housing surrounding it. And they are unrelated to a proposed property tax district comprising the 3,000 homes surrounding the ballpark that would
funnel revenue into affordable housing, among other projects, once the development is completed.
Take a transit mobility hub planned on Second Street, between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Clay Street, near Jack London Square, where city officials envision “game day crowds and daily commuters may easily and comfortably wait for buses, access bike share, valet bike parking, scooters and other types of mobility devices.”
In addition to funding held by the port, a separate $10 million state grant from the state transportation agency is also earmarked for the hub.
Infrastructure like that doesn’t need the Howard Terminal development nearby to benefit residents, city officials have argued. Opponents, though, suggest many of the improvements make sense only if the A’s succeed in bringing the massive development to life.
One of their questions:
Why would the city build a protected bicycle lane on Martin Luther King Jr. Way, between Eighth Street and Embarcadero West, that leads straight to industrial harbor land? Without housing and a new stadium there, they contend, the renovation would be pointless.
“We always review existing plans and say, ‘How can we find alignment between the transportation improvements that need to be done to improve access to these new developments and help the community at large?’” said Nicole Ferrara, a project manager in the city’s transportation department.
There are other projects that aren’t directly related to Howard Terminal. Interstate 880 underpass improvements would help reconnect neighborhoods cut through by the highway by adding signage, lighting and art.
Traffic signals will be upgraded on Adeline Street between Seventh Street and the seaport to reduce congestion and potential collisions among trucks going to and from the port off I-880. Sidewalk gaps on Third Street will be filled in to improve pedestrian paths.
But other projects appear to primarily benefit the A’s development, including an overcrossing at the streetlevel Union Pacific Railroad tracks on Market Street and Embarcadero West, which would provide vehicles straight-line access to the Howard Terminal ballpark site.
Currently, Howard Terminal is far from a destination for residents, which has not helped the city defend some projects from the raised eyebrows of opponents. Fife said she’d rather see money spent on improvements to make streets throughout West Oakland safer by installing more traffic calming measures.
And some residents are convinced the city is rushing to get these grant projects funded, so it can lure the A’s to agree to a deal.
“Why are we using our monies to fund a rich man’s dream to provide housing and development for people who don’t even live here?” said longtime Oakland resident Cathy Leonard at a recent city committee meeting. A new stadium and luxury housing, she said, could “further destroy and uproot the remaining Black families in West Oakland.”
Others at the same meeting urged the city to hold off at least until January, when the city’s new mayor will be sworn in, along with two fresh faces on the City Council.
Shipping and trucking businesses that rely on the port economy are also taking exception to projects that total $259 million, an opposition move after a Superior Court judge struck down most of their petitions against the project’s environmental review, with the exception of potential wind impacts. The business coalition has appealed the judge’s decision.
“During supply-chain gaps at the height of COVID, the state gave money to the port for offsite infrastructure improvements for the A’s,” said Mike Jacob, vice president and general counsel of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. “For them to turn around and say, ‘Well, there might be other co-benefits’ is right-in-your-face stuff.”