San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Sierra Club no fan of ballpark plan
access to Howard Terminal, the threat of sea level rise, site contamination by toxic waste, and the possible impacts a 34,000seat ballpark and accompanying development could have on jobs at other port operations.
By comparison, the Sierra Club said the OaklandAlameda County Coliseum site, where the team now plays, “is already approved for use as a stadium, is transit accessible and would lift up surrounding East Oakland neighborhoods rather than displacing maritime businesses and workers.”
The Sierra Club letter does not take an official position on the Howard Terminal project, but it does say that a new ballpark at the Coliseum site would be “the best deal for the taxpayers and the environment.”
The environmental organization also took aim at the team’s drive to streamline the approval process.
“In pushing their proposal to build at Howard Terminal, the A’s have sought shortcuts and exemptions from environmental laws, threatening public health, the San Francisco Bay ecosystem and the integrity of our system of public oversight,” the letter said.
The Sierra Club and its 15,000 Alameda County chapter members have long been seen as a key endorsement in local elections, especially on development and environmental issues, and City Council incumbents and others running for office often seek the club’s endorsement.
Tregub said the letter followed months of study and meetings with Oakland community groups. The group also toured the Howard Terminal site with the
A’s.
Tregub said the letter was prompted by the City Council’s recent decision to enter into negotiations to sell the city’s half interest in the Coliseum to the A’s as part of the Howard Terminal deal. Alameda County has already agreed to sell its portion of the 155acre Coliseum site to the team, which plans to develop the property.
Both sales are contingent on the A’s building a new ballpark in Oakland.
A’s President Dave Kaval’s initial reaction to the Sierra Club was shock — he told Chronicle sportswriter Susan Slusser that “we’re really surprised to see it.”
Kaval said the letter contained inaccuracies and called on the club to rescind it, but Tregub said the club has no intention of rescinding the letter or any of its statements.
“No one has convinced us that there is anything in the letter that is factually inaccurate,” he said.
In a subsequent interview, Kaval said it is “frustrating to see opposition from environmental groups when the project has so many positive environmental qualities. We spent a lot of time agreeing to higher standards than are required, including all LEEDGold certified and full greenhousegas neutrality.
“This project is going to help West Oakland,” Kaval continued. “If the project doesn’t go through, you are just going to have an empty former terminal.”
Tregub’s take: “I can certainly appreciate his being frustrated by our position. Everyone is entitled to their own positions.”
Kaval’s response was just as blunt.
“People may be entitled to their own positions but not their own facts,” he said. “We continue to call for Sierra to rescind the factually inaccurate and misleading letter.”
A firm split: California lawmakers’ recent vote to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to bring back affirmative action in higher education has once again ignited opposition within the state’s Chinese American community.
“My office received 17,000 emails opposed to the measure,” Assemblyman Phil Ting said. Assemblyman David Chiu said his office received 11,000 emails.
At issue is a ballot measure that, if passed by voters, would reverse Proposition 209 from 1996 and allow race to be considered a factor for admission into state universities and in awarding of state contracts and hiring.
Chiu said the opposition appeared to be organized by conservative groups and “very much” focused on college admissions rather than the benefits affirmative action could have on jobs and minorities winning state contracts.
Ting agreed. “Many of the opponents are newer immigrants from China and Taiwan, where the university you get into is determined by taking a test. It’s almost like training for the Olympics,” Ting said.
Both Ting, whose district includes Chinese American populations in San Francisco and San Mateo County, and Chiu, whose district covers much of San Francisco, said the overwhelming majority of the emails were from Silicon Valley and Southern California.
Still, Ting said that within his district calls and emails were running heavy on the “no” side: 92 opposed and 22 in favor of the measure.
Chiu said he got 331 emails from his district opposing the measure; 100 were in favor. Chinese American opposition was the key reason a similar amendment failed in the state Assembly in 2014.
Even this year, there appeared to be only tepid support for bringing the issue back to the forefront.
“The conversation six weeks ago was that it looked very unlikely to pass,” Ting said. Then came George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis and the national protests that followed, bringing Black Lives Matter to the forefront.
“There is still a lot of concern in the Chinese American community about how the issue impacts education, but that said — there is still racism in this country and this is one of the few proposals trying to address racism,” Ting said.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phil Matier appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KGOTV morning and evening news and can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call 4157778815, or email pmatier@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @philmatier