Over Thanksgiving weekend, popular Oakland blogger VSmoothe discussed the Victory Court proposal on her blog, A Better Oakland. She also mentioned that the site will be publicly discussed at this Wednesday's Oakland Planning Commission meeting.
We've always been fans of VSmoothe's blog, even the past times she was pessimistic about a new Oakland A's ballpark. So we consider it great progress that she now thinks a ballpark at Victory Court is a very real possibility and that, despite some of her concerns, the site could "spur the success of Jack London Square and the Lake Merritt BART Station area" and the Victory Court A's ballpark surrounding areas of Chinatown, downtown and Laney College.
She also notes many of the area's strengths, such as the abundant parking around the Jack London Square, Chinatown and Laney College areas.
We also would like to add that Victory Court's public transit options are excellent: the Lake Merritt BART station is as close to Victory Court as the Coliseum BART is to the Coliseum; the Broadway St. "B" Shuttle could easily service the park; the nearby Amtrak station is a stop for ACE and Capitol Corridor commuter trains, as well as Amtrak; the Jack London Ferry stop is nearby, and a closer ferry stop could be added to serve the stadium directly, just as was done at China Basin for San Francisco’s AT&T Park.
To her credit, VSmoothe also noted the few concerns around the site. She says that getting to Victory Court en masse by automobile during game time might be a problem, to name one example. Addressing concerns of nearby residents and businesses obviously will be paramount. But these and other potential issues are not insurmountable and any dismissals of the site are premature.
Instead, VSmoothe's blog post recognized that the public planning process has only started, and Wednesday's public meeting is just one step in a continuing, multi-step process that will allow the public to share their concerns and weigh in on the ballpark site with transparency. Part of that public process calls for identifying possible problems and coming up with solutions. San Francisco found a way to build new infrastructure around AT&T Park and to address traffic concerns, for example. There is no reason to believe that Oakland cannot accomplish the same.
Second, VSmoothe informed her readers by writing in detail about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process:
Basically, California state law requires that before a City can approve a development, they have to recognize what impacts that project will have on the surrounding environment. An EIR is the document that tells them what those impacts are going to be.
When a developer or, in this case, the City decides that they need to complete an EIR, the first step is to issue a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which briefly describes the proposal and notes what types of impacts are expected. The City issued a NOP (PDF) for a ballpark at the Victory Court location on November 10th. The purpose of this document is to alert the public and other interested parties that you are doing an EIR.
In short, Wednesday’s meeting will be an EIR scoping session to solicit public comments on the NOP.
For further explanation, VSmoothe quotes from the EIR staff report:
The main purpose of this scoping session is to solicit comments from both the Commission and the public on what types of information and analysis should be considered in the EIR. Specifically, comments should focus on discussing possible impacts on the physical environment, ways in which potential adverse effects might be minimized, and alternatives to the project in light of the EIR's purpose to provide useful and accurate information about such factors. Comments related to policy considerations and the merits of the project will be the subject of future, duly noticed public meetings.
In other words, you can go to the hearing to give your comments or you can put questions and/or comments in writing.
Those fans who are anxious to get something done, like, yesterday, should keep in mind that this process is a marathon and not a sprint. It takes time, and you want the city to study the site carefully in a transparent way. Meetings like the one being held Wednesday are crucial to that city process. As the Victory Court plan evolves, attending the meetings is the best way to find out the plan’s details and its real viability.
In the meantime, we look forward to seeing all of you at City Hall at 6PM on Wednesday night, as Oakland residents continue the fight to retain the A's here in Oakland.
Here are the details for the meeting:
WHEN: 6PM, this Wednesday, Dec. 1
WHERE: Oakland City Hall, in Hearing Room One
ADDRESS: One Frank Ogawa Plaza (14th St. & Broadway)
WHAT: Oakland Planning Commission Meeting
WHY: New A's baseball park near Jack London Square
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Express: Oakland & Quan Call Victory Court the Top Ballpark Site
An East Bay Express story by reporter Robert Gammon announced what the the scheduled Dec. 1 Planning Commission meeting had suggested: that the Victory Court ballpark site is the front-runner among Oakland's options. Even better was the news that the city is moving forward in conducting an environmental impact report for the site, an important step in the development process. (For those who might not closely follow land-use issues.)
Our favorite part of the Express article came from Mayor-Elect Jean Quan, who said she called MLB the day after she won the election.
"I wanted to let them know that I won, and that I would be fighting to keep the A's," Quan said. "And I wanted to make sure they knew that I would be doing everything possible to keep the negotiations going."
Gammon's story also featured these factoids:
*Oakland officials plan to use Redevelopment Agency funds for both the land acquisition and the EIR.
*City Administrator Dan Lindheim is leading the negotiations with MLB, making clear that MLB and the city of Oakland are in talks.
*Lindheim also said that MLB wants to have a new stadium for the A's in place by Opening Day 2015.
*Quan believes that the new ballpark will not only spur development at Jack London Square, Oak-to-Ninth, and Lake Merritt, but also will help nearby Chinatown businesses.
*Jim Falaschi (Jack London Square Partners) and Michael Ghielmetti (President, Signature Properties) control areas around Victory Court and both are in favor of the ballpark.
Our favorite part of the Express article came from Mayor-Elect Jean Quan, who said she called MLB the day after she won the election.
"I wanted to let them know that I won, and that I would be fighting to keep the A's," Quan said. "And I wanted to make sure they knew that I would be doing everything possible to keep the negotiations going."
Gammon's story also featured these factoids:
*Oakland officials plan to use Redevelopment Agency funds for both the land acquisition and the EIR.
*City Administrator Dan Lindheim is leading the negotiations with MLB, making clear that MLB and the city of Oakland are in talks.
*Lindheim also said that MLB wants to have a new stadium for the A's in place by Opening Day 2015.
*Quan believes that the new ballpark will not only spur development at Jack London Square, Oak-to-Ninth, and Lake Merritt, but also will help nearby Chinatown businesses.
*Jim Falaschi (Jack London Square Partners) and Michael Ghielmetti (President, Signature Properties) control areas around Victory Court and both are in favor of the ballpark.
6PM, Dec. 1, Oakland City Hall
Another big step in building a new A's ballpark in Oakland is about to be taken.
The Oakland Planning Commission will hold a hearing on a proposal for Oakland's Victory Court site, a baseball-only waterfront ballpark. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 1, in Hearing Room 1 at Oakland City Hall. The meeting is open to the public, so all A's fans should plan on being there. Oakland City Hall is located at 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, near the corner of Broadway Street and 14th Street in downtown Oakland. BART riders can exit at the City Center/12th Street station. Garage parking is available behind City Hall at the Clay Street Garage, located on Clay Street between 14th and 16th streets.
See you there. Let's Go Oak-land!!
The Oakland Planning Commission will hold a hearing on a proposal for Oakland's Victory Court site, a baseball-only waterfront ballpark. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 1, in Hearing Room 1 at Oakland City Hall. The meeting is open to the public, so all A's fans should plan on being there. Oakland City Hall is located at 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, near the corner of Broadway Street and 14th Street in downtown Oakland. BART riders can exit at the City Center/12th Street station. Garage parking is available behind City Hall at the Clay Street Garage, located on Clay Street between 14th and 16th streets.
See you there. Let's Go Oak-land!!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Dirty Dozen: A Recap of Wolff's Lies in AN Interview
The final part of Lew Wolff's interview with Athletics Nation concluded on Nov. 11.
Part I is here. Part II is here. And Part III is here.
Our sincere kudos to AN's Tyler Bleszinski for asking some tough questions. Unfortunately, Wolff's answers were filled with so many lies and factual inaccuracies we're still looking for the proper name for his 'performance.' Our favorite is, "Lew's Lie-a-palooza."
In the meantime, we divided our interview recap into a few categories better describing Wolff's falsehoods. Here's the recap:
MISLEADING
1. "TB: ...How would you anticipate (a new ballpark) impacting team spending?
Wolff: Huge. We will be able to do so much we can't do right now. However, I still don't think we would be ... going after free agents on a large scale. The ideal for us ... (is) ... after we know that they’re pretty good, buy them out of arbitration years and get a couple of extra years and pay for that. And even that still gives the player another bite of the free agent apple if we can’t keep them. ...I don’t think we’d go after (Mark) Teixeira for seven years or eight years, although who knows? But we would be in a much better position to attract and retain the players we want." (Part II)
Very misleading, Lew. Sure, it sounds exciting. Until you consider that Wolff's scenario is no different from how the A's have been doing business for about a decade. It's been Billy Beane's strategy for years to, as Wolff says, "buy young players out of their arbitration years and get a couple of extra years." John Hart of the Cleveland Indians was the first baseball GM to employ this strategy in the late '90s, and Beane followed suit in the early 2000s. So, when Wolff says a new stadium's impact will be "huge" and then he excitedly describes how it's going to be different, all he's doing is describing how the A's ALREADY do business at the Coliseum. Which makes sense because Wolff is already on record as saying that the A's approach will be "business as usual" once they get a new ballpark. Which Lew Wolff should we believe? Try the one that’s going to change little and spend less money.
OUTRIGHT LIES
2. "TB: Did the A's turn a profit in 2010?
Wolff: This year? We just about broke even.
TB: Is that a little over or a little under?
Wolff: I'm hoping it's over. ...We will be plus or minus around a million dollars one way or another ..." (Part II)
Around a "million dollars, plus or minus?" Really, Lew? Forbes Magazine disagrees with you. Forbes said that last year the A's profit was a whopping $22.1 million. That’s quite a bit more than "just about broke even." And the 2010 attendance was slightly above last year's, so the A's 2010 operating income very likely was much closer to 2009's $22.1 million, rather than Wolff's "around a million dollars, plus or minus." Wolff's apologists might claim that Forbes is way off. But, consider this: Forbes is a conservative magazine with a long history of strong reporting credibility. In contrast, baseball owners like Wolff and Fisher have a history of lying about their finances. Just this season, the finances for a handful of MLB franchises were leaked to the media. The leaked reports showed that team owners were lying about their finances and exaggerating their money woes in the lead-up to a new stadium. Sound familiar?
3. "We need to be in a downtown because the infrastructure is there. In Fremont, we would have created our own downtown. In Oakland, we have real problems of transportation and off ramps, just one thing after another." (Part III)
This is one of Wolff's oddest answers. There's no way Wolff could have "created" the kind of century-old downtown infrastructure in Fremont that the Bay Area's largest cities, including Oakland, already possess. Yet he now says that's the kind of downtown he needs. As for Oakland’s “problems of transportation and off ramps,” we really don’t know what he’s referring to. The Coliseum complex is a model of public access – it’s centrally located in the Bay Area, adjacent to a major freeway, and it features every kind of public transit station (BART subway, Amtrak, ACE & Capitol Corridor trains, AC Transit buses) that the Bay Area offers, except a ferry stop.
Also, the proposed Victory Court site has excellent transit options (BART, Jack London ferry stop, the free Broadway Street shuttle, Amtrak, ACE & Capitol Corridor trains, AC Transit buses) and, next door on I-880, there are ongoing freeway/road improvements that are soon to be completed.
4. "Wolff: 2006, right. We didn't sell out any of those games in Oakland.
TB: Any of the ALCS games?
Wolff: If we did, you have to check on that I'm not exactly sure. (Part II)
Wolff is lying here. Those Coliseum 2006 ALCS games were indeed sold out. The Coliseum capacity in 2006 was 34,077. A simple check of Retrosheet.org shows that Oakland attendance was 35,655 for Game 1 and 36,168 for Game 2. If that isn't a sellout, then I'm Matt Stairs.
5. "TB: Someone ... put up a story from 1998 from the Chronicle, where you were quoted as saying, "I wouldn't spend five minutes in any other city in California outside of San Jose."
Wolff: That was long before I was an owner, years ago. Yeah, we were trying to get the Giants to San Jose at that time. I was a businessperson in San Jose at that time so I was just trying to attract the Giants." (Part II)
Wolff is lying here, too. The 1998 Chronicle article is 100 percent about the A's and their desire to move to the South Bay. It was written by then-Chronicle A's beat writer, Steve Kettman, and it completely flies in the face of Wolff's answer to the question. Secondly, it would have been impossible for Wolff to move the Giants to the South Bay in 1998, as Wolff asserts he was doing, because they had already broken ground at China Basin in 1997 for the building of Pacific Bell Park (now AT&T Park). The ballot initiative for the Giants' Pac Bell Park passed in 1996.
6. "When I arrived in Oakland ... the number one location for the new ballpark was ... the "uptown site" ... which was designated for residential ... thus the best opportunity was not available to us or the Hofmann-Schott ownership." (Part I)
Also not true, Lew. The Uptown site was on the table for the A's throughout part of 2001 and nearly all of 2002. Unfortunately, the A's showed zero public support for the Uptown site. A's co-owner Steve Schott and team president Mike Crowley appeared at City Council meetings in Santa Clara in 2001 to publicly ask Santa Clara officials about moving the A's there. But neither Schott nor Crowley — or any A's employee, for that matter — ever appeared at an Oakland City Council meeting for the Uptown site. Even when Oakland leaders invited HOK Architects and ballpark consultant Rick Horrow to a City Council meeting in 2002, Schott and the A's were a total no-show. If the A's had shown even the slightest interest in the Uptown site, they might have been playing there at 20th Street and Telegraph Avenue, right next to the Fox Theater, for decades to come. Just weeks after that 2002 public city meeting, which included a standing-room-only crowd of A's fans, Schott told the S.F. Chronicle that he still wanted to move to the A's to the South Bay and then he insulted Oakland officials by saying "Basically, they're 0 for 2" on stadium construction. With Uptown still on the table at that point, Schott didn't do anything to go after it. His apathy is right there in this Chronicle article.
7. "I tried to be nice to a couple of people - a guy with one of those signs, ‘We hate Lew,’ you know?" (Part III)
Actually, Lew, there's never been a sign at the Coliseum with that message. One outfield sign this year said, "Wolff Hates Oakland" – big difference from what you said. Other signs said, "Fisher=Greed" or "Wolff Lied, He Never Tried." No sign ever said, "We hate Lew."
8. “No public money” (Part I)
(NOTE: To be clear, we're not against a public-private solution for ballpark funding. What we don't like is Wolff's misrepresentation of the facts.)
Wolff keeps saying the A's ballpark will be "privately financed." But he’s just playing with semantics. What Wolff really means is he won’t use a city’s general fund. But, a city’s other public revenue he’s more than happy to grab. If Wolff really doesn’t plan to use public funds, then why are the financial woes of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency threatening to torpedo Wolff's ballpark deal? "Privately financed" should mean that a city's money won’t come into play, but Wolff wants it both ways here. Instead, he's banking on the Redevelopment Agency to purchase land parcels for him and then give them to him for free. As an alternative to that, he’s also proposing that San Jose city officials sell the city’s precious remaining land parcels in order to pay for HIS ballclub’s stadium deal. On closer inspection, that doesn’t really sound "privately financed." Again, structuring a deal like this isn't bad, but just don't call it "privately financed." It's not.
9. "And we are, I believe, the only team in baseball to share our ballpark with another professional sports team." (Part I)
Not true, Lew. The Miami Dolphins and the Florida Marlins currently share Sun Life Stadium (formerly Joe Robbie Stadium and Pro Player Park). The Marlins are slated to move into a park in 2012.
10. "We explored every possible opportunity to remain in Oakland ... then and only then did we alter our focus to Fremont." (Part I)
This is Wolff's biggest lie. In fact, Wolff's one and only attempt at an Oakland site was his impossibly complex plan north of the Oakland Coliseum in August 2005, which called for buying out and moving dozens and dozens of East Oakland business owners. If Wolff was sincere about that plan, then why did he spend just as much time chatting with Fremont officials about their proposal at that public Oakland meeting than he did with Oakland officials? Read this excerpt from a 2006 East Bay Express story:
According to a column by Mark Purdy in the San Jose Mercury News, Wolff was introduced to Cisco CEO John Chambers in the fall of 2005 by former A's co-owner Ken Hofmann. Wolff and Chambers quickly began discussing a deal for the 143-acre Cisco-Catellus property, to which Cisco still held the rights.
Yep, you read that right. The article says that Wolff was in talks with Fremont and Cisco in the FALL OF 2005 (emphasis mine) — that's just weeks after Wolff first proposed his hopelessly complex East Oakland plan. Then, he said that the East Oakland plan "must" include a new BART station, a requirement he never demanded from Fremont or San Jose. Also, when former Oakland Councilman Dick Spees offered to head a business-booster committee to help Wolff build community support for his East Oakland plan, Wolff stiff-armed Spees and said he didn't need any help.
Given all of this, do you still believe Wolff made an "exhaustive" effort in Oakland? We sure don’t.
DOUBLE STANDARD
11. "Every redevelopment agency, every city is having financial trouble." (Part I)
A classic Lew Wolff double-standard. When Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums approached Wolff to offer help on a new Oakland ballpark, Wolff said that Oakland "has other priorities" besides baseball. But when other cities he wants to move to have similar financial problems, suddenly those "priorities" are no big deal for Wolff.
JUST NONSENSE
12. "We spent close to $80 million (in Fremont) ... roughly half is ancillary real estate, of which now that $40 million is worth $20 million. ...And we've written off another $28 million to $35 million for environmental impact reports and hundreds of architectural costs. ...$25 million to $30 million (is) absolutely non-recoverable." (Part II)
Our reponse to that: Huh?!
Seriously, Wolff's response begs more questions than it answers. Sorry, even the most expensive EIRs and architectural renderings, retainer fees, and other miscellaneous costs don't add up to $25 million. So, what exactly was the "non-recoverable" sum of $25 to $30 million spent on, Lew? And, almost two years after you gave up on Fremont, you still can't determine whether you spent $28 million or $35 million (or some figure in between) on land-prep costs? Then again, what's an easy $7 million among friends? And supposing you're telling the truth, Lew, are we supposed to be impressed that you blew almost $30 million on a very flawed stadium plan that no one was excited about except you and the mayor of Fremont? Doesn't that call into question your judgment? If only you were so laid-back with player costs, then maybe you guys wouldn't trade every fan-favorite player that comes down the pike.
There are actually a handful of other Wolff interview responses that we'll delve into in the coming weeks. Until then, we have to ask, if Wolff is wildly incorrect about the small stuff, like playoff game attendance, what else isn't he telling us?
Part I is here. Part II is here. And Part III is here.
Our sincere kudos to AN's Tyler Bleszinski for asking some tough questions. Unfortunately, Wolff's answers were filled with so many lies and factual inaccuracies we're still looking for the proper name for his 'performance.' Our favorite is, "Lew's Lie-a-palooza."
In the meantime, we divided our interview recap into a few categories better describing Wolff's falsehoods. Here's the recap:
MISLEADING
1. "TB: ...How would you anticipate (a new ballpark) impacting team spending?
Wolff: Huge. We will be able to do so much we can't do right now. However, I still don't think we would be ... going after free agents on a large scale. The ideal for us ... (is) ... after we know that they’re pretty good, buy them out of arbitration years and get a couple of extra years and pay for that. And even that still gives the player another bite of the free agent apple if we can’t keep them. ...I don’t think we’d go after (Mark) Teixeira for seven years or eight years, although who knows? But we would be in a much better position to attract and retain the players we want." (Part II)
Very misleading, Lew. Sure, it sounds exciting. Until you consider that Wolff's scenario is no different from how the A's have been doing business for about a decade. It's been Billy Beane's strategy for years to, as Wolff says, "buy young players out of their arbitration years and get a couple of extra years." John Hart of the Cleveland Indians was the first baseball GM to employ this strategy in the late '90s, and Beane followed suit in the early 2000s. So, when Wolff says a new stadium's impact will be "huge" and then he excitedly describes how it's going to be different, all he's doing is describing how the A's ALREADY do business at the Coliseum. Which makes sense because Wolff is already on record as saying that the A's approach will be "business as usual" once they get a new ballpark. Which Lew Wolff should we believe? Try the one that’s going to change little and spend less money.
OUTRIGHT LIES
2. "TB: Did the A's turn a profit in 2010?
Wolff: This year? We just about broke even.
TB: Is that a little over or a little under?
Wolff: I'm hoping it's over. ...We will be plus or minus around a million dollars one way or another ..." (Part II)
Around a "million dollars, plus or minus?" Really, Lew? Forbes Magazine disagrees with you. Forbes said that last year the A's profit was a whopping $22.1 million. That’s quite a bit more than "just about broke even." And the 2010 attendance was slightly above last year's, so the A's 2010 operating income very likely was much closer to 2009's $22.1 million, rather than Wolff's "around a million dollars, plus or minus." Wolff's apologists might claim that Forbes is way off. But, consider this: Forbes is a conservative magazine with a long history of strong reporting credibility. In contrast, baseball owners like Wolff and Fisher have a history of lying about their finances. Just this season, the finances for a handful of MLB franchises were leaked to the media. The leaked reports showed that team owners were lying about their finances and exaggerating their money woes in the lead-up to a new stadium. Sound familiar?
3. "We need to be in a downtown because the infrastructure is there. In Fremont, we would have created our own downtown. In Oakland, we have real problems of transportation and off ramps, just one thing after another." (Part III)
This is one of Wolff's oddest answers. There's no way Wolff could have "created" the kind of century-old downtown infrastructure in Fremont that the Bay Area's largest cities, including Oakland, already possess. Yet he now says that's the kind of downtown he needs. As for Oakland’s “problems of transportation and off ramps,” we really don’t know what he’s referring to. The Coliseum complex is a model of public access – it’s centrally located in the Bay Area, adjacent to a major freeway, and it features every kind of public transit station (BART subway, Amtrak, ACE & Capitol Corridor trains, AC Transit buses) that the Bay Area offers, except a ferry stop.
Also, the proposed Victory Court site has excellent transit options (BART, Jack London ferry stop, the free Broadway Street shuttle, Amtrak, ACE & Capitol Corridor trains, AC Transit buses) and, next door on I-880, there are ongoing freeway/road improvements that are soon to be completed.
4. "Wolff: 2006, right. We didn't sell out any of those games in Oakland.
TB: Any of the ALCS games?
Wolff: If we did, you have to check on that I'm not exactly sure. (Part II)
Wolff is lying here. Those Coliseum 2006 ALCS games were indeed sold out. The Coliseum capacity in 2006 was 34,077. A simple check of Retrosheet.org shows that Oakland attendance was 35,655 for Game 1 and 36,168 for Game 2. If that isn't a sellout, then I'm Matt Stairs.
5. "TB: Someone ... put up a story from 1998 from the Chronicle, where you were quoted as saying, "I wouldn't spend five minutes in any other city in California outside of San Jose."
Wolff: That was long before I was an owner, years ago. Yeah, we were trying to get the Giants to San Jose at that time. I was a businessperson in San Jose at that time so I was just trying to attract the Giants." (Part II)
Wolff is lying here, too. The 1998 Chronicle article is 100 percent about the A's and their desire to move to the South Bay. It was written by then-Chronicle A's beat writer, Steve Kettman, and it completely flies in the face of Wolff's answer to the question. Secondly, it would have been impossible for Wolff to move the Giants to the South Bay in 1998, as Wolff asserts he was doing, because they had already broken ground at China Basin in 1997 for the building of Pacific Bell Park (now AT&T Park). The ballot initiative for the Giants' Pac Bell Park passed in 1996.
6. "When I arrived in Oakland ... the number one location for the new ballpark was ... the "uptown site" ... which was designated for residential ... thus the best opportunity was not available to us or the Hofmann-Schott ownership." (Part I)
Also not true, Lew. The Uptown site was on the table for the A's throughout part of 2001 and nearly all of 2002. Unfortunately, the A's showed zero public support for the Uptown site. A's co-owner Steve Schott and team president Mike Crowley appeared at City Council meetings in Santa Clara in 2001 to publicly ask Santa Clara officials about moving the A's there. But neither Schott nor Crowley — or any A's employee, for that matter — ever appeared at an Oakland City Council meeting for the Uptown site. Even when Oakland leaders invited HOK Architects and ballpark consultant Rick Horrow to a City Council meeting in 2002, Schott and the A's were a total no-show. If the A's had shown even the slightest interest in the Uptown site, they might have been playing there at 20th Street and Telegraph Avenue, right next to the Fox Theater, for decades to come. Just weeks after that 2002 public city meeting, which included a standing-room-only crowd of A's fans, Schott told the S.F. Chronicle that he still wanted to move to the A's to the South Bay and then he insulted Oakland officials by saying "Basically, they're 0 for 2" on stadium construction. With Uptown still on the table at that point, Schott didn't do anything to go after it. His apathy is right there in this Chronicle article.
7. "I tried to be nice to a couple of people - a guy with one of those signs, ‘We hate Lew,’ you know?" (Part III)
Actually, Lew, there's never been a sign at the Coliseum with that message. One outfield sign this year said, "Wolff Hates Oakland" – big difference from what you said. Other signs said, "Fisher=Greed" or "Wolff Lied, He Never Tried." No sign ever said, "We hate Lew."
8. “No public money” (Part I)
(NOTE: To be clear, we're not against a public-private solution for ballpark funding. What we don't like is Wolff's misrepresentation of the facts.)
Wolff keeps saying the A's ballpark will be "privately financed." But he’s just playing with semantics. What Wolff really means is he won’t use a city’s general fund. But, a city’s other public revenue he’s more than happy to grab. If Wolff really doesn’t plan to use public funds, then why are the financial woes of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency threatening to torpedo Wolff's ballpark deal? "Privately financed" should mean that a city's money won’t come into play, but Wolff wants it both ways here. Instead, he's banking on the Redevelopment Agency to purchase land parcels for him and then give them to him for free. As an alternative to that, he’s also proposing that San Jose city officials sell the city’s precious remaining land parcels in order to pay for HIS ballclub’s stadium deal. On closer inspection, that doesn’t really sound "privately financed." Again, structuring a deal like this isn't bad, but just don't call it "privately financed." It's not.
9. "And we are, I believe, the only team in baseball to share our ballpark with another professional sports team." (Part I)
Not true, Lew. The Miami Dolphins and the Florida Marlins currently share Sun Life Stadium (formerly Joe Robbie Stadium and Pro Player Park). The Marlins are slated to move into a park in 2012.
10. "We explored every possible opportunity to remain in Oakland ... then and only then did we alter our focus to Fremont." (Part I)
This is Wolff's biggest lie. In fact, Wolff's one and only attempt at an Oakland site was his impossibly complex plan north of the Oakland Coliseum in August 2005, which called for buying out and moving dozens and dozens of East Oakland business owners. If Wolff was sincere about that plan, then why did he spend just as much time chatting with Fremont officials about their proposal at that public Oakland meeting than he did with Oakland officials? Read this excerpt from a 2006 East Bay Express story:
According to a column by Mark Purdy in the San Jose Mercury News, Wolff was introduced to Cisco CEO John Chambers in the fall of 2005 by former A's co-owner Ken Hofmann. Wolff and Chambers quickly began discussing a deal for the 143-acre Cisco-Catellus property, to which Cisco still held the rights.
Yep, you read that right. The article says that Wolff was in talks with Fremont and Cisco in the FALL OF 2005 (emphasis mine) — that's just weeks after Wolff first proposed his hopelessly complex East Oakland plan. Then, he said that the East Oakland plan "must" include a new BART station, a requirement he never demanded from Fremont or San Jose. Also, when former Oakland Councilman Dick Spees offered to head a business-booster committee to help Wolff build community support for his East Oakland plan, Wolff stiff-armed Spees and said he didn't need any help.
Given all of this, do you still believe Wolff made an "exhaustive" effort in Oakland? We sure don’t.
DOUBLE STANDARD
11. "Every redevelopment agency, every city is having financial trouble." (Part I)
A classic Lew Wolff double-standard. When Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums approached Wolff to offer help on a new Oakland ballpark, Wolff said that Oakland "has other priorities" besides baseball. But when other cities he wants to move to have similar financial problems, suddenly those "priorities" are no big deal for Wolff.
JUST NONSENSE
12. "We spent close to $80 million (in Fremont) ... roughly half is ancillary real estate, of which now that $40 million is worth $20 million. ...And we've written off another $28 million to $35 million for environmental impact reports and hundreds of architectural costs. ...$25 million to $30 million (is) absolutely non-recoverable." (Part II)
Our reponse to that: Huh?!
Seriously, Wolff's response begs more questions than it answers. Sorry, even the most expensive EIRs and architectural renderings, retainer fees, and other miscellaneous costs don't add up to $25 million. So, what exactly was the "non-recoverable" sum of $25 to $30 million spent on, Lew? And, almost two years after you gave up on Fremont, you still can't determine whether you spent $28 million or $35 million (or some figure in between) on land-prep costs? Then again, what's an easy $7 million among friends? And supposing you're telling the truth, Lew, are we supposed to be impressed that you blew almost $30 million on a very flawed stadium plan that no one was excited about except you and the mayor of Fremont? Doesn't that call into question your judgment? If only you were so laid-back with player costs, then maybe you guys wouldn't trade every fan-favorite player that comes down the pike.
There are actually a handful of other Wolff interview responses that we'll delve into in the coming weeks. Until then, we have to ask, if Wolff is wildly incorrect about the small stuff, like playoff game attendance, what else isn't he telling us?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Congrats to Mayor-Elect Jean Quan
It's a few days late, but we can't let this busy week end without giving a hearty congratulations to Oakland's new Mayor-Elect Jean Quan. The City Councilwoman has made history -- she will be Oakland's first female mayor and its first Asian-American mayor. That's reason enough to cheer her victory. The other reason we're happy to see her win is that Quan is vocally in favor of building a new waterfront A's ballpark at Oakland's Victory Court site, right next to Jack London Square.
So, congrats again, Mayor-Elect Quan. Now, let's keep the A's in Oakland!
So, congrats again, Mayor-Elect Quan. Now, let's keep the A's in Oakland!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wolff Lies, Pt. II
Yesterday we talked about the factual inaccuracies in Lew Wolff's arguments in Part One of his Athletics Nation interview. Today, we do more of the same for Part Two:
TB: There are some conspiracy theorists out there who claim that you never really had any intention of moving to Fremont. They say that the Fremont stadium effort was an effort to get the Giants and baseball to consider San Jose more seriously. Someone even in the piece I ran yesterday about favorable/unfavorable put up a story from 1998 from the Chronicle, where you were quoted as saying, "I wouldn’t spend five minutes in any other city in California outside of San Jose."
LW: That was long before I was an owner, years ago. Yeah, we were trying to get the Giants to San Jose at that time. I was a business person in San Jose at that time so I was just trying to attract the Giants.
The article in question — click here for it — was written by Steve Kettmann, the Chronicle beat writer covering the A's at the time. (Kettmann would later go on to write another article about Wolff and the A's in 2009.) But let's discuss Wolff's quote. First of all, the 1998 Chronicle piece is 100 percent about the A's. It completely flies in the face of what Wolff is saying in regards to moving the Giants. Secondly, in 1998 in would be impossible to move the Giants out of San Francisco. They had already broken ground in 1997 for the building of Pacific Bell Park (now AT&T Park). The ballot initiative for Pac Bell Park passed in 1996.
LW: When we won the division and we were in the "final four" three years ago.
TB: 2006
LW: 2006, right. We didn't sell out any of those games in Oakland.
TB: Any of the ALCS games?
LW: If we did, you have to check on that I’m not exactly sure. ...
Wolff is lying here. Those Coliseum games were indeed sold out. The Coliseum capacity in 2006 was 34,077. A simple check of Retrosheet.org shows that Oakland attendance was 35,655 for Game 1 and 36,168 for Game 2. If that isn't a sellout then I'm John Jaha.
Continuing along those same lines:
LW: But the most interesting part was we didn’t change prices significantly [after 2006] and we had less season ticket holders interested in buying season tickets for the next season than we had the year before. Hard to believe. You tell me why that is.
Here's why, Lew. First, A's-game prices skyrocketed from 2005-2006, and continued to go up in 2007. Also, look at what happened in the off-season.
1. Wolff announced his desire to move to Fremont (unpopular with fans)
2. Barry Zito signed with the Giants (loss of fan favorite)
3. Frank Thomas departs to Toronto (loss of fan favorite)
In some ways, I'm tired of writing these articles. I really am. However, due to Wolff's constant lies and inaccuracies we have no choice but to fight back with the facts. Moving the A's is one thing. Moving them based on total falsehoods is another.
Part 3 is coming soon ...
TB: There are some conspiracy theorists out there who claim that you never really had any intention of moving to Fremont. They say that the Fremont stadium effort was an effort to get the Giants and baseball to consider San Jose more seriously. Someone even in the piece I ran yesterday about favorable/unfavorable put up a story from 1998 from the Chronicle, where you were quoted as saying, "I wouldn’t spend five minutes in any other city in California outside of San Jose."
LW: That was long before I was an owner, years ago. Yeah, we were trying to get the Giants to San Jose at that time. I was a business person in San Jose at that time so I was just trying to attract the Giants.
The article in question — click here for it — was written by Steve Kettmann, the Chronicle beat writer covering the A's at the time. (Kettmann would later go on to write another article about Wolff and the A's in 2009.) But let's discuss Wolff's quote. First of all, the 1998 Chronicle piece is 100 percent about the A's. It completely flies in the face of what Wolff is saying in regards to moving the Giants. Secondly, in 1998 in would be impossible to move the Giants out of San Francisco. They had already broken ground in 1997 for the building of Pacific Bell Park (now AT&T Park). The ballot initiative for Pac Bell Park passed in 1996.
LW: When we won the division and we were in the "final four" three years ago.
TB: 2006
LW: 2006, right. We didn't sell out any of those games in Oakland.
TB: Any of the ALCS games?
LW: If we did, you have to check on that I’m not exactly sure. ...
Wolff is lying here. Those Coliseum games were indeed sold out. The Coliseum capacity in 2006 was 34,077. A simple check of Retrosheet.org shows that Oakland attendance was 35,655 for Game 1 and 36,168 for Game 2. If that isn't a sellout then I'm John Jaha.
Continuing along those same lines:
LW: But the most interesting part was we didn’t change prices significantly [after 2006] and we had less season ticket holders interested in buying season tickets for the next season than we had the year before. Hard to believe. You tell me why that is.
Here's why, Lew. First, A's-game prices skyrocketed from 2005-2006, and continued to go up in 2007. Also, look at what happened in the off-season.
1. Wolff announced his desire to move to Fremont (unpopular with fans)
2. Barry Zito signed with the Giants (loss of fan favorite)
3. Frank Thomas departs to Toronto (loss of fan favorite)
In some ways, I'm tired of writing these articles. I really am. However, due to Wolff's constant lies and inaccuracies we have no choice but to fight back with the facts. Moving the A's is one thing. Moving them based on total falsehoods is another.
Part 3 is coming soon ...
Wolff Lies in Interview, Pt. I
On Nov. 7, Dave Newhouse penned a column in which he candidly called Lew Wolff a liar. Just two days later, Wolff gave an interview and promptly proved Newhouse right. There are several outright lies and factual inaccuracies that Wolff told in his Nov. 9 interview with Athletics Nation.
Let's just dive right in and list them. Wolff said:
"No public money"
Wolff keeps saying that he'll ask a city to spend "no public money" and that a new A's ballpark will be "privately financed." But he's just playing with semantics. What Wolff really means is he won't use a city's general fund. But, he definitely plans to take a city's other sources of tax revenue, including redevelopment agency money. If Wolff really doesn't plan to use any public funds, then why are the financial woes of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency threatening to torpedo Wolff's ballpark deal, as the San Jose Mercury News reported? "Privately financed" should mean that millions of dollars of a city's money won't come into play, but Wolff is trying to have it both ways here. Instead, he's banking on San Jose's Redevelopment Agency to purchase land parcels for him and then to give that valuable land to him for free. As an alternative to that, he's also proposing that San Jose city officials sell the city's precious remaining land parcels in order to pay for HIS ballclub's stadium deal. Does that sound like "privately financed" to you? Nah, we don't think so, either.
"We explored every possible opportunity to remain in Oakland … then and only then did we alter our focus to Fremont."
This is Wolff's biggest lie and his most oft-repeated one. But in fact, Wolff's one and only attempt at an Oakland site was his impossibly complex plan north of the Oakland Coliseum in August 2005, which called for buying out and moving dozens and dozens of East Oakland business owners. If Wolff was sincere about that plan, then why did he spend just as much time chatting with Fremont officials about their proposal at that public Oakland meeting than he did with Oakland officials? Read this excerpt from a 2006 East Bay Express story:
According to a column by Mark Purdy in the San Jose Mercury News, Wolff was introduced to Cisco CEO John Chambers in the fall of 2005 by former A's co-owner Ken Hofmann. Wolff and Chambers quickly began discussing a deal for the 143-acre Cisco-Catellus property, to which Cisco still held the rights.
Yep, you read that right. The article says that Wolff was in talks with Fremont and Cisco in the FALL OF 2005 (emphasis mine) — that's just weeks after Wolff first proposed his hopelessly complex East Oakland plan. Then, he said that the East Oakland plan "must" include a new BART station, a requirement he never demanded from Fremont or San Jose. Also, when former Oakland Councilman Dick Spees offered to head a business-booster committee to help Wolff build community support for his East Oakland plan, Wolff stiff-armed Spees and said he didn’t need any help. Hmmmm. Lastly, look at this Wolff quote from 1998 — yes, from 12 years ago:
If I was going to pursue a ballpark, I would certainly do it in San Jose, not depend on a vote outside of San Jose, and I would work through the mayor and the Redevelopment Agency. It's the difference between a big-league city and a nonbig-league city. I wouldn't spend five minutes on any other city besides San Jose.
Given all of this, do you still believe Wolff made an "exhaustive" effort in Oakland? We sure don't.
"When I arrived in Oakland ... the number one location for the new ballpark was … the 'uptown site' ... which was designated for residential ... thus the best opportunity was not available to us or the Hofmann-Schott ownership."
Also not true, Lew. The Uptown site was on the table for the A's throughout part of 2001 and nearly all of 2002. Unfortunately, the A's showed zero public support for the Uptown site. A's co-owner Steve Schott and team president Mike Crowley appeared at City Council meetings in Santa Clara in 2001 to publicly ask Santa Clara officials about moving the A's there. But neither Schott nor Crowley — or any A's employee, for that matter — ever appeared at an Oakland City Council meeting for the Uptown site. Even when Oakland leaders invited HOK Architects and ballpark consultant Rick Horrow to a City Council meeting in 2002, Schott and the A's were a total no-show. If the A's had shown even the slightest interest in the Uptown site, they might already be playing there at 20th St. and Telegraph Ave., right next to the Fox Theater, for decades to come. Just weeks after that public city meeting, which included a standing-room-only crowd of A's fans, Schott told the S.F. Chronicle that he still wanted to move to the A's to the South Bay and then he insulted Oakland officials by saying "they're 0 for 2" on stadium construction. With Uptown still on the table at that point, Schott didn't do anything to go after it. His apathy is right there in this Chronicle article.
“Every redevelopment agency, every city is having financial trouble.”
A classic Lew Wolff double-standard. A few years ago Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums approached Wolff, offering help on a new Oakland ballpark, Wolff shrugged him off and said that Oakland "has other priorities" besides baseball. But when other cities he wants to move to have similar financial problems, suddenly it’s no big deal for Wolff.
“And we are, I believe, the only team in baseball to share our ballpark with another professional sports team.”
Not true, Lew. The Miami Dolphins and the Florida Marlins currently share Sun Life Stadium (formerly Joe Robbie Stadium and Pro Player Park). The Marlins are slated to move into a park in two years, so for the next 24 months, Lew, you remain wildly inaccurate.
We could go on and dissect other Wolff inaccuracies, but we’ll stop here for now. We'll get to them later in the week. As for now, we can’t wait to read Part II of the interview.
Let's just dive right in and list them. Wolff said:
"No public money"
Wolff keeps saying that he'll ask a city to spend "no public money" and that a new A's ballpark will be "privately financed." But he's just playing with semantics. What Wolff really means is he won't use a city's general fund. But, he definitely plans to take a city's other sources of tax revenue, including redevelopment agency money. If Wolff really doesn't plan to use any public funds, then why are the financial woes of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency threatening to torpedo Wolff's ballpark deal, as the San Jose Mercury News reported? "Privately financed" should mean that millions of dollars of a city's money won't come into play, but Wolff is trying to have it both ways here. Instead, he's banking on San Jose's Redevelopment Agency to purchase land parcels for him and then to give that valuable land to him for free. As an alternative to that, he's also proposing that San Jose city officials sell the city's precious remaining land parcels in order to pay for HIS ballclub's stadium deal. Does that sound like "privately financed" to you? Nah, we don't think so, either.
"We explored every possible opportunity to remain in Oakland … then and only then did we alter our focus to Fremont."
This is Wolff's biggest lie and his most oft-repeated one. But in fact, Wolff's one and only attempt at an Oakland site was his impossibly complex plan north of the Oakland Coliseum in August 2005, which called for buying out and moving dozens and dozens of East Oakland business owners. If Wolff was sincere about that plan, then why did he spend just as much time chatting with Fremont officials about their proposal at that public Oakland meeting than he did with Oakland officials? Read this excerpt from a 2006 East Bay Express story:
According to a column by Mark Purdy in the San Jose Mercury News, Wolff was introduced to Cisco CEO John Chambers in the fall of 2005 by former A's co-owner Ken Hofmann. Wolff and Chambers quickly began discussing a deal for the 143-acre Cisco-Catellus property, to which Cisco still held the rights.
Yep, you read that right. The article says that Wolff was in talks with Fremont and Cisco in the FALL OF 2005 (emphasis mine) — that's just weeks after Wolff first proposed his hopelessly complex East Oakland plan. Then, he said that the East Oakland plan "must" include a new BART station, a requirement he never demanded from Fremont or San Jose. Also, when former Oakland Councilman Dick Spees offered to head a business-booster committee to help Wolff build community support for his East Oakland plan, Wolff stiff-armed Spees and said he didn’t need any help. Hmmmm. Lastly, look at this Wolff quote from 1998 — yes, from 12 years ago:
If I was going to pursue a ballpark, I would certainly do it in San Jose, not depend on a vote outside of San Jose, and I would work through the mayor and the Redevelopment Agency. It's the difference between a big-league city and a nonbig-league city. I wouldn't spend five minutes on any other city besides San Jose.
Given all of this, do you still believe Wolff made an "exhaustive" effort in Oakland? We sure don't.
"When I arrived in Oakland ... the number one location for the new ballpark was … the 'uptown site' ... which was designated for residential ... thus the best opportunity was not available to us or the Hofmann-Schott ownership."
Also not true, Lew. The Uptown site was on the table for the A's throughout part of 2001 and nearly all of 2002. Unfortunately, the A's showed zero public support for the Uptown site. A's co-owner Steve Schott and team president Mike Crowley appeared at City Council meetings in Santa Clara in 2001 to publicly ask Santa Clara officials about moving the A's there. But neither Schott nor Crowley — or any A's employee, for that matter — ever appeared at an Oakland City Council meeting for the Uptown site. Even when Oakland leaders invited HOK Architects and ballpark consultant Rick Horrow to a City Council meeting in 2002, Schott and the A's were a total no-show. If the A's had shown even the slightest interest in the Uptown site, they might already be playing there at 20th St. and Telegraph Ave., right next to the Fox Theater, for decades to come. Just weeks after that public city meeting, which included a standing-room-only crowd of A's fans, Schott told the S.F. Chronicle that he still wanted to move to the A's to the South Bay and then he insulted Oakland officials by saying "they're 0 for 2" on stadium construction. With Uptown still on the table at that point, Schott didn't do anything to go after it. His apathy is right there in this Chronicle article.
“Every redevelopment agency, every city is having financial trouble.”
A classic Lew Wolff double-standard. A few years ago Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums approached Wolff, offering help on a new Oakland ballpark, Wolff shrugged him off and said that Oakland "has other priorities" besides baseball. But when other cities he wants to move to have similar financial problems, suddenly it’s no big deal for Wolff.
“And we are, I believe, the only team in baseball to share our ballpark with another professional sports team.”
Not true, Lew. The Miami Dolphins and the Florida Marlins currently share Sun Life Stadium (formerly Joe Robbie Stadium and Pro Player Park). The Marlins are slated to move into a park in two years, so for the next 24 months, Lew, you remain wildly inaccurate.
We could go on and dissect other Wolff inaccuracies, but we’ll stop here for now. We'll get to them later in the week. As for now, we can’t wait to read Part II of the interview.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Congrats to the Giants
The San Francisco Giants are World Series Champions. We at BaseballOakland want to extend our congratulations for this accomplishment to the team, the owners, and their fans. They all earned this.
The team is a likable group of homegrown young talent, combined with cast-offs and misfits who play as a team and leave their egos up in the seats with the fans. The team kind of reminds me of Oakland.
To the ownership, this is the result of embracing your community, uniting your fan base, and effectively marketing your product. The current A's ownership could learn a lot from them.
The fans? I know what you're thinking: "Those yuppie, hipster, bandwagon jumpers — why do they deserve this?" Well, those types of fans may be over-represented at AT&T Park now, but it wasn’t always like this. There are many Giant fans who tortured through a cold, lonely, Tuesday-night, extra-inning loss at Candlestick in the '70s, '80s and '90s. Those fans earned and deserve this championship and that parade. As former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said at the start of the series, "Everybody's a baseball expert now, but where were you when the Giants really needed you?" There is still a contingent of fans from that past era who can enjoy a game without having a computer on their lap. As two old friends of mine who are longtime Giant fans, and who attended this series told each other after the Giants won, "We can die happy now."
The team is a likable group of homegrown young talent, combined with cast-offs and misfits who play as a team and leave their egos up in the seats with the fans. The team kind of reminds me of Oakland.
To the ownership, this is the result of embracing your community, uniting your fan base, and effectively marketing your product. The current A's ownership could learn a lot from them.
The fans? I know what you're thinking: "Those yuppie, hipster, bandwagon jumpers — why do they deserve this?" Well, those types of fans may be over-represented at AT&T Park now, but it wasn’t always like this. There are many Giant fans who tortured through a cold, lonely, Tuesday-night, extra-inning loss at Candlestick in the '70s, '80s and '90s. Those fans earned and deserve this championship and that parade. As former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said at the start of the series, "Everybody's a baseball expert now, but where were you when the Giants really needed you?" There is still a contingent of fans from that past era who can enjoy a game without having a computer on their lap. As two old friends of mine who are longtime Giant fans, and who attended this series told each other after the Giants won, "We can die happy now."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)