A’s get approval to explore site options
Team can search for home outside Bay Area
With their $12 billion waterfront ballpark proposal encountering headwinds, the A’s on Tuesday dropped a negotiating bombshell, announcing they have MLB’s support to look outside the Bay Area for a new home.
The move brings powerful pressure on Oakland, which lost two of its three major sports teams in the last two years and now confronts an expensive proposal for the A’s to construct a ballpark and surrounding development at Howard Terminal near Jack London Square. The team submitted that proposal only late last month, requesting quick approval before the city council’s summer recess, but city officials so far have not assented to that schedule.
Now, noting that their current Coliseum lease expires after the 2024 season and the best-case opening date for the waterfront ballpark is 2027, the A’s say they are running out of time.
“We’re still hopeful that we can make progress in Oakland,” A’s president Dave Kaval said. “But we’re down to some of our last at-bats.”
Increasing the pressure, MLB said for the first time that the Coliseum site, viewed by some city leaders as a potential fallback, is not a viable option. Given the complexity and scope of the Howard Terminal project — and the significant amount of tax revenue the A’s are insisting on to get it built — that suggests the A’s might well follow the Warriors and the Raiders out of town.
Kaval reached out to A’s fans via email and Twitter on Tuesday, saying, in part, “The time is here for a decision on our future, and it is unclear to us and MLB whether there is a path to success for the A’s in Oakland.”
Some local advocates have
suggested the A’s be sold to owners more committed to keeping them in Oakland, but Kaval told this news organization the team is not for sale.
The A’s play in an outdated 55-year-old facility they can’t wait to abandon. In recent years the A’s had ballpark plans near Laney College and in Fremont fall through, and multiple attempts at permanent and temporary moves to San Jose were unsuccessful. In a statement, MLB said “the Athletics need a new ballpark to remain competitive, so it is now in our best interest to also consider other markets.”
A’s owner John Fisher said in a statement, “The future success of the A’s depends on the new ballpark. Oakland is a great baseball town, and we will continue to pursue our waterfront ballpark project. We will also explore MLB’s direction to explore other markets.”
It’s worth noting that Lew Wolff, the A’s former managing partner and co-owner, said in 2014 that the team had approval from MLB to seek relocation options outside of Oakland. The result was the current lease. Since then, the A’s bought half of the Coliseum site from Alameda County for $85 million in 2020 and submitted a formal bid to buy the other half from the city. Kaval said MLB opposes the Coliseum site because new ballparks built in downtown areas — Petco Park in San Diego, Oracle Park in San Francisco — have been financially successful.
“MLB is very clear that the Coliseum site is not a future location for a new ballpark,” Kaval said. “And we agree with that. We’ve been saying that for quite some time that a downtown waterfront location is what’s needed for the A’s to be successful in Oakland.”
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has in recent years listed Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; Vancouver, British Colombia; Nashville, Tennessee; San Antonio; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Montreal as potential expansion sites. Those cities figure to be on the list of potential suitors for the A’s. If the Giants relinquish their rights to Santa Clara County, which seems unlikely, San Jose could potentially be on the table, too. But Kaval said if the A’s relocate it’d be limited to a list of cities provided by MLB.
City officials kept the negotiating window open.
“We share MLB’s sense of urgency and their continued preference for Oakland. Today’s statement makes clear that the only viable path to keeping the A’s rooted in Oakland is a ballpark on the waterfront,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said in a statement.
Schaaf’s initial response to the A’s late-April term sheet was tepid, but she appears motivated not to let a third professional sports team leave the city under her watch. In the last two years, the Warriors have left for San Francisco and the Raiders fled to Las Vegas. The mayor’s statement added that the city was “fully committed” to collaborating with the A’s to bring a publicprivate funding plan to the city council this year.
City Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas said the Oakland City Council “is committed to keeping the A’s in Oakland.”
Fortunato Bas said she met with Kaval on April 30, and told him the Council leadership, including Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan and District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife wanted to meet with the A’s ownership to discuss the project, but have not received a response from A’s ownership.
The A’s said in their term sheet proposal they will fund the $1 billion ballpark part of the project that is proposed to also include 3,000 units of housing, 1.5 million square feet of offices, 270,000 square feet of retail, hundreds of hotel rooms, and an indoor performance space.
The team wants the city to spend $855 million on infrastructure, in exchange for what it projects would be $955 million in general fund revenue and $450 million in community benefits — but that return would be stretched over 45 years.
The team wants the city to create a huge, 1½-milelong tax district that would capture money from property owners to fund the infrastructure for the development.
Councilmember Treva Reid, who represents the Coliseum area, said in a statement that her focus is on community benefits in any deal.
“I appreciate the contribution of the Athletics and their commitment to stay rooted in Oakland; however, the Council must have an adequate amount of time to thoroughly evaluate their proposed offer to ensure Oakland residents receive a fair, transparent, and equitable deal.”
Kaval, a part-owner, said he and a negotiating team have frequent meetings with the Oakland city council. But he would not confirm that majority owner Fisher was present at those meetings.