Candidates split on new A’s stadium proposal
The candidates vying for an East Bay Assembly district seat are divided over whether to support a new ballpark for the Oakland A’s at Howard Terminal, which would be one of the largest infrastructure projects in the city’s history if approved.
Some describe the project — which will be paid for through private financing, projectgenerated revenues and directed tax receipts — as the “best chance of keeping the A’s” in Oakland while others call it a giveaway to billionaires.
The A’s proposed $12 billion project will fund a 35,000capacity baseball stadium, 3,000 residential units, up to 1.5 million square feet of commercial uses, up to 270,000 square feet for retail, an indoor performance center for up to 3,500 people, 400 hotel rooms and up to 18 acres of publicly accessible open space.
If fully accepted, the A’s say the project will generate $450 million in community benefits in the form of affordable housing and infrastructure improvements, plus $955 million for the city’s general fund.
The key phrase is “if approved.” The Oakland City Council will vote on the A’s term sheet on July 20, three weeks after the June 29 special election for the Assembly seat vacated by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, a runoff between the top two finishers will be held Aug. 31 — which will keep the issue in play in the campaign.
Even though the project would largely be under the purview of city officials, it will have myriad effects on the neighborhoods surrounding it, including on transportation lines, the waterfront and port, parking and tax revenue throughout the district.
Several of the candidates expressed their feelings about the ballpark project in connection with their sentiments about the A’s.
“The Howard Terminal project is the best chance Oakland has at keeping the A’s in Oakland, and I believe it would be a mistake to allow a third major league sports franchise to leave the Town,” said Alameda Unified School District Board president Mia Bonta. “We need jobs for Oaklanders, housing for Oaklanders and community gathering spaces here in Oakland so we can maintain the soul of the Town in a way that also lifts up those who call it home.”
Bonta was the only candidate of five who responded to The Chronicle to support the project. San Leandro School Board member James Aguilar, social justice attorney Janani Ramachandran, electrical engineer Stephen Slauson and San Leandro Vice Mayor Victor Aguilar all opposed the plan.
“Trust me, I want the A’s to stay and for us to look for areas of economic expansion — they were a part of my growing up in Oakland,” James Aguilar said. “But I do not support a tradeoff between the A’s and a project at the expense of Oakland taxpayers.”
Ramachandran feared that the construction project could displace thousands of union jobs connected with the Port of Oakland for the sake of white collar workers who would gain jobs through development associated with the project. She is worried that it will spur “quickly rising rates of gentrification” and worried about the potential environmental impact on West Oakland.
“This is not a project about economic development nor job creation, as some tout. It’s about billionaire interests,” Ramachandran said. “Only corporate Democrats would believe that it’s a good idea to displace thousands of unionized workers who earn living wages.”
The 135,000member Alameda County Labor Council, composed of 135 unions, voted in 2019 to support the construction of the park at Howard Terminal. Bonta said “there will also be good union jobs in the stadium after it is built.”
Victor Aguilar blamed John Fisher, the billionaire majority owner of the A’s, for “trying to push through a project that benefits (himself ), instead of investing in the community. We must put our community first.”
Three of the other candidates in the race — AlamedaVice Mayor Malia Vella, public health professional Eugene Canson and retail worker Joel Britton — declined to respond to requests from The Chronicle to express their views on the project.
Among the candidates who weighed in, a main point of disagreement was over the use of infrastructure financing districts to fund the project. The tax revenue generated from those districts will go toward paying the A’s back for all infrastructure costs. The $855 million in tax revenue will be used to fund onsite and offsite infrastructure upgrades, including at nearby Jack London Square.
The city of Oakland contends that “the project will not raise taxes or put the city or county’s general funds at risk.” But some candidates, including Ramachandran, did not believe that, saying that “this project is not privately funded, but will cost taxpayers over $1 billion.”
Slauson, the only Republican among the eight candidates on the ballot, described it as “a massive project which will require massive public financing ... the project is too costly for the amount of available financing in the district.”
Bonta supported the funding arrangement, saying it “would allow Oakland to both invest in infrastructure to build a thriving, mixeduse community centered on a new Oakland A’s ballpark, as well as reap new revenues for the general fund from increases in sales and use taxes.”