Gabe Lacques, USA TODAY
Oakland’s City Council on Tuesday approved a non-binding term sheet that on paper represents the next step in a $12 billion project proposed by the Oakland Athletics for a new ballpark on the city’s waterfront.
Yet the council vote, by a 6-1 tally with one abstention, came with the strong understanding that the A’s would reject many of the terms that were revised from their April proposal to the city.
So rather than a step forward, Tuesday’s action – which included several hours of public comment that came out strongly against the club's original terms – instead was a chance for the council and citizens to push back against the strong-arm tactics of the franchise and Major League Baseball, which insisted the A’s will relocate if its terms are not met
.
© Thearon W. Henderson, Getty Images A view outside the Athletics' stadium in 2019.
MLB in April signaled its approval for the A’s to seek relocation options if the Howard Terminal project is not approved, and club president Dave Kaval has since made multiple trips to Las Vegas, with another scheduled for Wednesday. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred told reporters on July 13 that “thinking about Las Vegas as a bluff is a mistake.”
Tuesday, the wounds from those actions – which included Kaval gleefully tweeting from a Vegas Golden Knights Stanley Cup playoff game – surfaced from the council and its constituents.
“The bullying factor, the sleights of hand, the tweets from Vegas – if we were voting on how the A’s have behaved, it would be a no vote,” council member Loren Taylor said before the vote. “But we’re voting on the future of Oakland.”
And the council’s version of a term sheet included one significant concession to the club – absolving the A's of $352 million in infrastructure costs, which the council hoped it could generate by applying for federal and state development funds. But it asked the club to provide 35% affordable housing units among its planned development that actually dwarfs the ballpark itself in the scope of the deal.
The council’s term sheet said the A’s would set aside 15% of onsite housing as affordable, while also requiring the club to establish a displacement prevention strategies fund and provide anti-displacement tenant services in the four neighborhoods affected by the project.
The A’s did not cite any direct affordable-housing set-asides in their April term sheet, instead noting that housing could be funded through tax districts created by the project. While council members hoped to view their term sheet approval as a movement toward further negotiations, Kaval indicated the terms were not acceptable and said the club had not seen the terms until Tuesday.
“We hoped it’d be a vote on something we brought in April, or a derivative of it. It’s hard to understand how that’s a path forward,” he said after reviewing the council’s term sheet.
A resounding number of citizens felt the same way, but for a multitude of different reasons.
Hundreds of Oakland residents virtually queued to make one-minute comments before and after the session, almost all of them rejecting the parameters of the A’s original term sheet. While many were protecting personal interests – such as Port of Oakland workers who may be affected by the project, or East Oakland residents who’d prefer the team stay at the Coliseum site – many were disgusted at the gall displayed by Kaval on behalf of owner John Fisher, who has an estimated net worth of $3.2 billion.
Fisher and his father Donald were part of a group that purchased the A’s for $180 million in 2005, after which the current odyssey for a new ballpark to replace the aging Coliseum began. The team’s value is now estimated by Forbes at $1.125 billion and likely would appreciate further with a new stadium.
The city’s lack of affordable housing and its multitudes of unhoused residents would hardly be addressed by a $12 billion project for a ballclub.
“West Oakland has been devastated,” resident William Chorneau said before the vote. “All my neighbors have been pushed out. The stadium will bring about more traffic, more gentrification and more pollution.”
A Port employee identified as A. Wright said, “This is a billionaire looting the city. Put this on the ballot, and it would lose.”
While Kaval and MLB insisted on action before the council recesses next month, it’s clear the process will not move forward without further negotiation. Other potholes await, including finalization of an environmental impact report, expected in October, as well as Alameda County’s approval.
Council members repeatedly tossed back the A’s since-deactivated hashtag – “Rooted In Oakland” – during their deliberations, a theme that rang hollow once Kaval began canoodling with Las Vegas. With one public commenter urging the club “not to let the Golden Gate hit you on the way out,” the council on Tuesday showed its willingness to negotiate – and also call MLB’s bluff if needed.
"If the A’s are not happy with what was produced today and still talking about leaving after the city bent over backward and provided some of its best work in the interest of Oakland residents – and how these wealthy owners don’t’ have to pay for infrastructure – then I don’t know where we go from here,” says council member Carroll Fife, who abstained from the vote because she felt the A’s would reject it anyway.
“After doing all the somersaults and all the insults…it’s not a negotiation. It’s, ‘Do what we say or we will leave.’ That is not rooted. That is not respectful.”
MLB in April signaled its approval for the A’s to seek relocation options if the Howard Terminal project is not approved, and club president Dave Kaval has since made multiple trips to Las Vegas, with another scheduled for Wednesday. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred told reporters on July 13 that “thinking about Las Vegas as a bluff is a mistake.”
Tuesday, the wounds from those actions – which included Kaval gleefully tweeting from a Vegas Golden Knights Stanley Cup playoff game – surfaced from the council and its constituents.
“The bullying factor, the sleights of hand, the tweets from Vegas – if we were voting on how the A’s have behaved, it would be a no vote,” council member Loren Taylor said before the vote. “But we’re voting on the future of Oakland.”
And the council’s version of a term sheet included one significant concession to the club – absolving the A's of $352 million in infrastructure costs, which the council hoped it could generate by applying for federal and state development funds. But it asked the club to provide 35% affordable housing units among its planned development that actually dwarfs the ballpark itself in the scope of the deal.
The council’s term sheet said the A’s would set aside 15% of onsite housing as affordable, while also requiring the club to establish a displacement prevention strategies fund and provide anti-displacement tenant services in the four neighborhoods affected by the project.
The A’s did not cite any direct affordable-housing set-asides in their April term sheet, instead noting that housing could be funded through tax districts created by the project. While council members hoped to view their term sheet approval as a movement toward further negotiations, Kaval indicated the terms were not acceptable and said the club had not seen the terms until Tuesday.
“We hoped it’d be a vote on something we brought in April, or a derivative of it. It’s hard to understand how that’s a path forward,” he said after reviewing the council’s term sheet.
A resounding number of citizens felt the same way, but for a multitude of different reasons.
Hundreds of Oakland residents virtually queued to make one-minute comments before and after the session, almost all of them rejecting the parameters of the A’s original term sheet. While many were protecting personal interests – such as Port of Oakland workers who may be affected by the project, or East Oakland residents who’d prefer the team stay at the Coliseum site – many were disgusted at the gall displayed by Kaval on behalf of owner John Fisher, who has an estimated net worth of $3.2 billion.
Fisher and his father Donald were part of a group that purchased the A’s for $180 million in 2005, after which the current odyssey for a new ballpark to replace the aging Coliseum began. The team’s value is now estimated by Forbes at $1.125 billion and likely would appreciate further with a new stadium.
The city’s lack of affordable housing and its multitudes of unhoused residents would hardly be addressed by a $12 billion project for a ballclub.
“West Oakland has been devastated,” resident William Chorneau said before the vote. “All my neighbors have been pushed out. The stadium will bring about more traffic, more gentrification and more pollution.”
A Port employee identified as A. Wright said, “This is a billionaire looting the city. Put this on the ballot, and it would lose.”
While Kaval and MLB insisted on action before the council recesses next month, it’s clear the process will not move forward without further negotiation. Other potholes await, including finalization of an environmental impact report, expected in October, as well as Alameda County’s approval.
Council members repeatedly tossed back the A’s since-deactivated hashtag – “Rooted In Oakland” – during their deliberations, a theme that rang hollow once Kaval began canoodling with Las Vegas. With one public commenter urging the club “not to let the Golden Gate hit you on the way out,” the council on Tuesday showed its willingness to negotiate – and also call MLB’s bluff if needed.
"If the A’s are not happy with what was produced today and still talking about leaving after the city bent over backward and provided some of its best work in the interest of Oakland residents – and how these wealthy owners don’t’ have to pay for infrastructure – then I don’t know where we go from here,” says council member Carroll Fife, who abstained from the vote because she felt the A’s would reject it anyway.
“After doing all the somersaults and all the insults…it’s not a negotiation. It’s, ‘Do what we say or we will leave.’ That is not rooted. That is not respectful.”
No comments:
Post a Comment