Reading signals >> Is the team ready to walk or bluffing?
OAKLAND >> For Oakland A’s fans who were hoping Friday would bring news that a deal to get a waterfront ballpark built at Howard Terminal was close, the city’s announcement of where things stood and the team’s stark contrarian outlook must have hit like a bombshell.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said all the right things in a prepared statement about how the city and A’s are working in tandem toward “making the vision of a world-class ballpark a reality,” but A’s President Dave Kaval popped that bubble by declaring in an interview that “while we’re always open to continuing to negotiate, we’re not in a position where this can work right now.”
And indeed, when the dust had settled, it appeared the city and team are still leagues apart despite negotiating since early 2020 over the financial terms of the proposed ballpark and surrounding mixed-use development.
The city is still insisting that the A’s must provide a healthy dose of affordable homes — the equivalent of 900 in all — and pay millions of dollars out of their own pocket for community benefits that range from relocation assistance to local hiring. And it’s only willing to form one of the two tax assessment districts the A’s say are needed to cover their development’s infrastructure costs.
Kaval rejected those conditions outright Friday, saying they’re tantamount to telling the A’s they may as well leave. The only common ground both sides seem to have landed on was how long the A’s should commit to staying in Oakland if they get their ballpark — roughly 25 to 30 years.
So is all lost, and the Vegas Raiders will soon be joined by the Vegas A’s, thus proving Kaval’s battle cry of “Howard Terminal or Bust” meant business?
Or are both sides engaging in hardball negotiations to see who blinks first before the Oakland City Council convenes a meeting Tuesday to consider voting on the A’s nonbinding financial terms for building their $12 billion ballpark and mixed-use development, a critical first step?
Andy Dolich, a former A’s executive who runs a sports consulting firm, says the spirited exchanges between Kaval and the city show that negotiations are proceeding in earnest and each side should take the other seriously because neither appears to be bluffing.
“They are approaching it as seriously as they possibly can. I don’t think it’s a cloud of, ‘Hey, pay no attention to the man over there,’” he said. “No, I don’t believe that for a second, because they have the approval of MLB.” Indeed, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred publicly warned city officials during the AllStar Game not to make the mistake of thinking the A’s Howard Terminal ultimatum is an empty threat.
”If the city wanted to play hardball in return,” Dolich added, “they should ask the A’s to prove they’re ready to handle the logistics surrounding the hopeful stadium land, such as the environmental impact review and other legal questions.
“Given the broad range of constituencies involved — and the varying disagreements between them — the drama is likely to unfold for a much longer time than fans and the public would hope,” he said.
“Yes, there will be a focal point Tuesday and millions of words written from coast to coast. Will there be a decision? No. Not a decision that gets heavy equipment doing anything.”
Whether they reach a deal or not, one thing is clear — there’s a lot of pressure on both sides to win in the court of public opinion. Schaaf faces being known the mayor who saw three professional teams leave Oakland under her watch — first the Raiders, then the Golden State Warriors and now maybe the A’s.
And although Schaaf and a faction of council members occasionally clash on city issues, all seem to be on the same page in insisting that the team must provide affordable homes — that’s a city law, after all — and a host of other community benefits their constituents and advocacy groups are clamoring for.
As for Kaval, he’s painted the A’s into the corner of showing they have somewhere to go if the Howard Terminal project blows up, whether it’s to Las Vegas or one of the handful of towns Major League Baseball has targeted for expansion.
Concessions could go a long way toward easing the pressure for both sides. One possible concession to watch for involves the issue of affordable housing.
Kaval has been adamant that the team — which proposed to build 3,000 homes on the Howard Terminal site along with 1.5 million square feet of office space, 270,000 square feet of mixed retail, a 3,500-seat performance theater, 400 hotel rooms and about 18 acres of parks and open space — shouldn’t have to designate any of those homes as affordable or pay fees to have them built elsewhere.
“There are existing affordability laws, but we feel the money we’re putting forth more than compensates for those dollars, and the end result is better,” Kaval said as recently as Wednesday. He has insisted the city could pay for such housing from the property tax revenue it’s expected to reap by forming tax assessment districts.
But in response to a query Saturday about whether the team is holding that line, team spokesperson Catherine Aker said “we have said we will follow the laws required for affordable housing.”
Kaval couldn’t be reached for comment later Saturday to indicate whether Aker’s statement reflected a change in the A’s approach.
If the affordable housing issue is resolved, another big sticking point left would be who pays for the roads, sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, seismic upgrades, environmental cleanups and other improvements needed to support a ballpark/village development and the means for throngs of A’s fans to get there by crossing railroad tracks.
The A’s say they’ll pay the upfront costs for all that but expect the city to issue bonds to reimburse them. To do that, the team wants the city to create two tax assessment districts — one specifically for the Howard Terminal site, which currently has almost no tax revenue, and the other for the nearby Jack London Square-West Oakland area.
The city says it’s in for a Howard Terminal tax assessment district, but not for the Jack London Square one that the A’s expect to receive more than $350 million from.
Even if the city and A’s settle on one tax assessment district, however, the arrangement hinges on the cooperation of Alameda County, which holds the proverbial wild card.
The county would have to agree to “opt in” and essentially fork over the bulk of property tax growth it otherwise would be entitled to from the land appreciation.
In a mid-June meeting, the Board of Supervisors balked at the city’s request that it agree by the end of the month to make such a sacrifice.
The board said it wouldn’t schedule a vote until September to address the request — potentially complicating the city’s discussion Tuesday. Despite having little involvement in the process for years, “now we’re being told to decide in 20 days,” board President Keith Carson said during the meeting.
Carson’s office did not respond to a request for comment Saturday about whether the board would consider revisiting the issue earlier.
All the drama has swirled emotions among A’s fans and Oaklanders who question the team’s “Rooted in Oakland” slogan.
Meanwhile, Mayor Schaaf has said relatively little publicly about the negotiations, issuing only vague written statements about the project’s potential, such as Friday’s proclamation that the city’s offer “moves us one step closer to making the vision of a world-class ballpark a reality.” She declined through a spokesperson to comment on Kaval’s repudiation of the city’s rosy spin on negotiations.
“It’s frustrating, I’m upset, I’m angry, I’m sad,” said Will MacNeil of Hayward, a lifelong fan of the A’s. “It’s such a wide range of emotions. It’s so many years of a roller coaster ride and not sure what is going to happen, and when Kaval came in it was like, ‘It’s finally going to happen.’
“Now I just feel like he lied to us. I really feel like while it may still work out, we are saying goodbye to our Oakland A’s. Maybe the next few days will get better but today my reaction is just all the negative.”