City, A’s at odds as vote nears
Team rejects new terms in Oakland plan
Oakland and the A’s dug into their positions Friday as the city released a tentative financial plan for development of a waterfront stadium at the Howard Terminal that doesn’t satisfy the baseball team’s demands.
The A’s rejected the proposal’s financial terms but city officials said they will continue to work toward an agreement with the team as a key vote by the City Council on Tuesday nears.
The city and the baseball team differ on at least one key point: the infrastructure tax financing districts to support the project. The team, however, appeared to move closer to the city’s terms on the contentious issue of affordable housing.
The A’s are seeking approval from the City Council on Tuesday to indicate support for the team’s vision for the Howard Terminal site. A yes vote would allow the city and the team to continue negotiating. A no vote could kill the project.
Dave Kaval, the president of the A’s, criticized the new proposal and said the city’s plan is a “step backwards.”
“We remain far apart and what was released today does not work for the A’s, lacks specifics and a yes vote on that is a no vote on the project,” Kaval said. “It means we have no agreement at Howard Terminal ... our last location to make Oakland work.”
Kaval said if the council votes on the proposal that the city put out, they would be voting against the A’s plans to have a waterfront ballpark.
“It will end our last option to build a new ballpark in Oakland,” he said, adding that
team is looking at other markets.
Mayor Libby Schaaf released a statement rejecting Kaval’s comments on how far apart the city and the team are in reaching an agreement.
“We appreciate the A’s working with us to reach consensus on nearly all financial terms as well as continue to problemsolve between now and approval of a binding development agreement,” she said.
Schaaf said the city’s plan moves the project forward and “will be a gamechanger for West Oakland and our entire region, providing affordable housing, public parks, great jobs, and other direct benefits for the community — all without the risk to our Port, our taxpayers, or the City or County’s general funds.”
The city made clear that the team and its staff would pursue one infrastructure financing district over the Howard Terminal site as opposed to the A’s proposed two tax districts, including one covering Jack London Square. The A’s have said the project is not financially workable without both proposed districts to bring in necessary revenue.
The city agreed to at least a 25year nonrelocation agreement in the new term sheet. Previously, officials had pushed for a 45year nonrelocation agreement. The A’s had agreed to 20 years but on Friday upped that to 30.
Tuesday’s vote is not on a final term sheet or development agreement, which would have to be agreed upon by both the A’s and the city before a vote. Negotiations can continue after Tuesday’s meeting. The city has to release its final environmental impact report before developing the mutually agreed upon term sheet. A community benefits package also still needs to be hammered out.
Team officials said they plan to visit Las Vegas area on Wednesday.
If built, the project at Howard Terminal would dramatically change the city’s waterfront and generate jobs and tax revenue for Oakland.
The A’s first released a financial term sheet in April detailing their plans to build a $12 billion project that includes a $1 billion privately financed 35,000seat waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal, 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.
At the time, Justin Berton, a spokesman for Mayor Libby Schaaf, said the proposal “appears to request public investment at the high end for projects of this type nationwide.”
Since then, the city and the team have struggled to reach agreement.
The A’s proposed creating two infrastructure financing districts — one over the Howard Terminal site and another over a larger swath of Jack London Square — to fund infrastructure upgrades and community benefits.
The A’s estimated that the Howard Terminal district would generate $860 million in tax revenue and the other would
bring in $1.4 billion.
The city argued that tax revenue generated from Jack London Square would exist without the ballpark project. The city has so far rejected the proposal to create that district.
If the city were to create a tax district in Jack London Square, residents would have the option to protest its creation, effectively allowing residents a vote. But a tax district at the Howard Terminal site would require only a majority vote from the county’s Board of Supervisors.
The city’s financial plan states that the developer, in this case the A’s, will fund all onsite infrastructure, and the creation of parks and open space. The A’s can be reimbursed by up to 80% of all tax revenue from the tax district of the project site.
In April, the A’s estimated that the Howard Terminal Financing District would use $495
million of its revenue to fund all onsite infrastructure costs, including environmental remediation, seismic improvements and sea levelrise improvements.
The projected cost of offsite transportation infrastructure improvements, grade separation and parking management could cost $351.9 million, according to A’s projections. The city and the A’s are still negotiating how that will be paid for — a point that Kaval criticized.
“To see that ambiguity this late in the process was surprising,” he said. “We’ve been working for five years, how can we not know who is paying for certain things?”
City staff said they will work with the A’s to apply for local, state, federal and other regional funds to help pay for the cost of offsite infrastructure upgrades.
The A’s appeared to move closer to the city on the issue of affordable
housing units that will be built as part of the overall development.
Initially, the A’s proposed using funds from the infrastructure tax financing districts for the community benefits package.
But council members sharply rebuked their proposal and said any development must include a certain number of affordable housing units as mandated by city law.
The city on Friday laid out a financial framework that requires that 30% of housing units in the development be affordable, half of which could be satisfied by offsite affordable units and displacement measures.
The city’s financial plan states that the A’s will be required to build onsite affordable housing — as required by city and state law that “cannot be waived by the City.” The requirement that 15% of all new onsite units be affordable would result in about 450 affordable units.
Kaval said Friday the A’s will “adhere to redevelopment laws” regarding the construction of affordable housing.
The city plans to set aside funds from the community benefits package to fund antidisplacement strategies aimed at an additional 450 affordable units. This could include new construction, preservation of existing units, renovation and other assistance.
In Jack London Square, Oaklanders and A’s fans said they want to keep the A’s in Oakland, but that the city should keep working to make sure they get the best deal.
“It’s a tricky situation,” said Allison PowellJones, an East Oakland native and A’s fan. “We definitely need the affordable housing — 30% is not really even enough — but we need to keep the A’s. All of the other teams have left Oakland. I really don’t know what we should do.”
Her husband, Harold PowellJones, also a lifetime Oaklander, said the city shouldn’t bend to the A’s demands and instead hold its ground.
“I don’t think the city should let up,” he said. “The A’s are part of a multibilliondollar industry and they can afford to pay for a stadium. Then again, you don’t want to lose Oakland’s last sports team. And a baseball stadium here, downtown, would be amazing. It would drive growth here.”