The Las Vegas Athletics?

40% of the Personal Seat Licenses for the Raiders were purchased out of state. I don't think that would exist in any other market. Vegas is a unique because it draws a lot of tourists --43 million a year -- compared to its 2 million population. As sports is entertainment, this just ads to the mix of things to do for a tourist.

I can tell you that at many Golden Knights home games, maybe 10% of the crowd are from the visiting team city, especially when the Canadian teams in town.

 

Only a lack of resources will slow it or some dramatic change in tax policy. What Vegas needs to do is what Phoenix has done -- diversify its economy beyond just tourism.

 

It ain't going well in Oakland land....

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/baseball/oakland-as-not-ok-with-ballpark-plan-approved-by-city-council-2403361/

Oakland A’s not OK with ballpark plan approved by city council

The Oakland Athletics’ possible path to Las Vegas got a bit clearer Tuesday as the team’s proposal for a Bay Area waterfront ballpark was not approved by the Oakland City Council.

The city council instead voted 6-1, with Councilwoman Carroll Fife abstaining, to approve its amended counter proposal, which team President Dave Kaval said essentially amounts to a no vote.

“The current term sheet, even with these amendments is not something the A’s have consensus around,” Kaval said during the meeting. “I just really want to stress that voting yes on something that we don’t agree with… is not an effective path forward.”

The two plans going into the meeting differed in several ways but the main sticking points for the A’s were offsite infrastructure, community benefits and the length of a non-relocation agreement tied to the Howard Terminal project site.

The city amended several points on its proposal, including not holding the A’s responsible for $352 million in noted offsite infrastructure costs, which was cited as a major issue to the team. Even with that the A’s still weren’t satisfied.

Without approval of the A’s proposed term sheet for a $12 billion mixed-use project that included a $1 billion stadium, Kaval said previously it would be challenging to see a path forward toward a new ballpark in Oakland, making relocation more of a possibility.

After Kaval expressed his concerns about the city’s amended term sheet, Fife questioned what the point of the meeting was if the A’s weren’t going to be on board.

“I question why we’re even here today,” Fife said. “I don’t know where we go from here after doing somersaults, after receiving insults, after being disrespected.”

Kaval noted the team would entertain further negotiating over the next weeks before the council goes on break, but Fife didn’t see the point of doing so.

“It’s not a negotiation, it’s really do what we say or we will leave,” Fife said. “That is not respectful. I don’t even see the necessity of my comments if that’s the space they’re working.”

The A’s will continue their exploration of the Southern Nevada market this week, as Kaval and a team architect will be in the Las Vegas Valley on Wednesday and Thursday to look at potential sites for a $1 billion ballpark.

The trip will mark the A’s fourth visit to Southern Nevada and Kaval said to expect members of the organization to make return trips every few weeks, as they continue to try to whittle a site list of 20 down to a handful of locations.

Despite the A’s lack of enthusiasm for the proposal voted on, a joint statement from Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and Councilwomen Rebecca Kapaln and Nikki Fortunato Bas called the vote a “milestone” in their work to keep the team in the Bay Area, saying they believe the A’s should agree to those terms.

“Based on our extensive negotiation, shared values and shared vision, we believe the A’s can and should agree to the terms approved by the city council today,” the statement read. “This is the path to keeping the A’s rooted in Oakland in a way that protects our port and taxpayers and will produce the benefits our community demands and deserves.”

Despite the A’s lack of enthusiasm for the proposal voted on, a joint statement from Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and Councilwomen Rebecca Kapaln and Nikki Fortunato Bas called the vote a “milestone” in their work to keep the team in the Bay Area, saying they believe the A’s should agree to those terms.

“Based on our extensive negotiation, shared values and shared vision, we believe the A’s can and should agree to the terms approved by the city council today,” the statement read. “This is the path to keeping the A’s rooted in Oakland in a way that protects our port and taxpayers and will produce the benefits our community demands and deserves.”

 

There's no domed or indoor stadiums in any minor league team. So these guys are used to playing in the heat and and humidity in some areas. I think for the fans its more an issue because they are stuck in the seats. And at times in the spring the winds can be crazy in Vegas.

 

Yah I saw this yesterday. Not much new here. To me the best place to put it would be on the corner of Sahara and the Strip. People could walk to the event from the Sahara, the Strat, Resorts world, and Fountainbleu if it opens in Oct 2023. Shuttle buses from Wynn/ Encore, Venetian and Ti also very easy. Plus its on Sahara Blvd so easy access from the freeway. And that neighborhood would be completely transformed with a ball park there. Good for the City of LV also being across the street from the border

Ruffin has also promised to redo Circus Circus after buying it from MGM. Having the Adventurezone there also brings in kids for a game.

I just don't see Summerlin or Henderson --which is where the M resort is -- and that area on Koval is right under the airport traffic.

But who knows? My guess is they stay in Oakland after all this. Its also possible they are playing Vegas for some other cities they are looking at too.

 

Good article today from East Bay Times. Seems like the ball is in the A's court now. Its .... complicated. This all started when the A's told the county they would not build a new stadium on the old grounds. They wanted a better location. For whatever reason, they decided on taking over part of the Port and that raised the complexity 100 fold. For example, new construction requires the builder to make "low cost housing" to complete the project. The Port authority and Unions are involved. Chinatown is involved. There needs to be infrastructure built for people to get there.

For years they have been going back and forth with the City and County. Now, MLB has allowed them to move so the pressure is on.

/https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/07/25/oakland-laid-out-its-terms-for-an-as-waterfront-ballpark-plan-so-what-happens-now

When the A’s issued their “term sheet” in April laying out what kind of financial help they expect from the city, Kaval delivered the now-infamous ultimatum “Howard Terminal or Bust,” essentially telling Oakland to accept the team’s terms or else. Instead, the city decided to meet the A’s somewhere in the middle.

Besides the $1 billion ballpark, the A’s plan to build as many as 3,000 residential units, 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 at the 55-acre Howard Terminal site, which is part of the Port of Oakland. All that lucrative development, presumably, helps the A’s pay for the park.

Depending on what the A’s decide, here are some answers to what can happen next:

Q. What happens if the A’s reject Oakland’s terms and say they’re done negotiating?

A. Negotiations can’t resume if the A’s don’t want to be there. The A’s refusal to continue talking would essentially shelve their project — unless the city caves, which seems unlikely.

Q. If the A’s agree to negotiate, what needs to be ironed out to reach a deal?

The more controversial of those districts would extend far from the park, encompassing a 1 1/2-mile swath including Jack London Square to finance the off-site streets, sidewalks, pedestrian bridges and other work intended to make it easier for A’s fans to cross railroad tracks to get to the ballpark. The A’s are counting on $352 million from that district for the work.

But instead of forming that district and — in essence — forcing local taxpayers to foot the bill, council President Rebecca Kaplan came up with an alternative scheme — namely, the city will seek state and federal transportation dollars to pay for the work.

The City Council supported that move and tried to assure the A’s they would be off the hook for the $352 million. The A’s haven’t said whether the guarantee is enough.

Q. What are some of the other sticking points?

A. Affordable housing is one. Oakland requires developers to designate a percentage of their projects for affordable housing. In a term sheet released July 16, the city said 15% of the proposed 3,000 units should be affordable and the team should pay impact fees to produce the equivalent of 20% affordable units elsewhere.

The A’s have asked for a waiver from that requirement, arguing the city could use project-generated property tax revenue to pay for affordable housing.

The city also wants the A’s to shell out millions of dollars for relocation and other services for people and businesses facing displacement from the ballpark/village development, job training, workforce development and local hiring for project-related jobs.

As with affordable housing, the A’s say Oakland can pay for that too with property tax revenue.

Q. If the A’s agree to negotiate, what needs to be ironed out to reach a deal?

A. Several things, starting with the A’s insistence that the city form two tax districts to pay for capital improvements needed to prepare Howard Terminal for the planned development and to provide better access to the site.

Q. If those sticking points are resolved and a deal is struck, can the ballpark work begin?

A. Not quite. The City Council still must approve a final environmental impact report for the whole development, possibly by the end of this year, as well as city general plan amendments and rezoning.

Q. Are there any wild cards out there that can still hold up everything or kill the deal?

A. Yes. Alameda County can throw a wrench into the deal. That’s because the city has agreed to form one of the tax assessment districts the A’s called for — specifically to pay for the sidewalks, streets, soil cleanup, seismic safety and other work that must be done at the Howard Terminal site.

Some of the taxes from that district would typically go to the county. It is estimated that the county would be giving up $11 million annually in new taxes for the infrastructure work. But the A’s argue that without the ballpark development, those new taxes wouldn’t exist, so the county is giving up nothing. In fact, they estimate, the county will come out $6 million ahead each year.

Still, the Board of Supervisors balked at the A’s plan during its meeting last month, delaying a decision until September. If the county decides to insist on a larger share of the taxes, the city must either make up the difference or hope the A’s agree to do so.

Q: If the county buys in and the deal is on, what other approvals are needed before dirt can be turned over?

A: If the city approves an EIR, the Port of Oakland must sign off on a master lease with the A’s and certify that the Howard Terminal development is compatible with seaport activities.

Q. How soon must a deal be reached before the A’s get impatient again?

A. The A’s want a deal in hand by the end of this baseball season, which officially culminates with the World Series in late October. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said last week the city would work hard to meet that deadline.

Q: If everything is set, when can we see the A’s playing in their new ballpark?

A: It’s unclear when actual construction of a ballpark would begin, but because the A’s lease at the Coliseum expires in 2024, the aim is to have the ballpark ready for action that season.

Q: When would construction of the houses, offices, hotels and the rest of the Howard Terminal project happen?

A: Not until the ballpark is pretty much done. At this point, there’s no exact timeline for which buildings would go up first, but the entire development is expected to take 10-15 years to complete.

A. That’s what the city is trying to figure out. Alameda County sold its half of the site to the A’s in 2019 for $85 million, but the city still owns the other half.

On Tuesday, the City Council authorized city administrators to begin negotiating with two of the development groups that had expressed interest in buying the city’s half of the site.

One group is led by former A’s pitcher Dave Stewart and Lonnie Murray, a certified player agent and owner of Sports Management Partners.

The other group, the African American Sports and Entertainment Group, is led by Oakland businessman and consultant Ray Bobbitt, former city manager Robert Bobb, developer Alan Dones and sports agent Bill Duffy.

Either group likely would have to negotiate to develop the site along with the A’s or buy the team’s share of the site.

 

If it happens and they build it at the north end of the strip, it would be walking distance for me.... I might even turn into an American League fan.

Las Vegas Festival Grounds emerging as contender in A’s relocation plan

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2021/jul/23/las-vegas-festival-grounds-potential-ballpark-site

Oakland A’s leadership have visited numerous sites throughout Southern Nevada in recent weeks to explore potential relocation here.

This week, the club brought architect Brad Schrock in an effort to visualize which sites would potentially be best. More than 20 sites here are being considered.

It’s safe to say a few stood out, namely Phil Ruffin’s Las Vegas Festival Grounds land near Las Vegas Boulevard and Sahara Avenue, and a site in Summerlin.

“On the north Strip at the Festival Grounds, to have that view back down the entire Strip, that would be pretty iconic,” A’s president Dave Kaval said. “In Summerlin, if a ballpark site could look over the entire valley … wow. That would be dynamic. Those two sites stood out, but there’s a lot of locations, including west of Interstate 15 and also in Henderson.”

 

Oakland A's back to "negotiating" with city of Oakland again. I still think they are staying put in Oakland.

A’s agree to resume talks with Oakland on building a waterfront ballpark, mayor office says
Team president declines to comment on latest development

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/30/as-oakland-to-continue-negotiating-over-howard-terminal-ballpark-deal-mayors-office-says/

OAKLAND — After hitting a major snag 10 days ago, the Oakland A’s and the city are heading back to the negotiating table in an effort to forge an agreement over the team’s plan to build a waterfront ballpark and surrounding village at Howard Terminal, Mayor Libby Schaaf’s office said Friday.

Lawyers representing both sides have agreed to “continue working towards an approved project,” mayor’s office spokesman Justin Berton said.

“Mayor Schaaf and city staff are excited about the progress that is being made,” Berton added. “This moves us one step closer to making the vision of a world-class waterfront ballpark a reality.” No date has been set for resuming the talks, he said.

Asked if the A’s would confirm the mayor’s announcement, team spokesperson Catherine Aker said “we don’t have a comment at this time.”

In a statement released late Friday afternoon, City Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas said, “When we return from Council recess in September, I am prepared to continue supporting good faith negotiations with the A’s to achieve an agreement that honors Oakland.”

The city’s announcement comes after the team threatened to possibly walk away from Oakland’s terms for financing all the preparation work needed to build the planned 35,000-seat ballpark and mixed-use development at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal.

The A’s had warned that if the City Council did not accept their financial term sheet at its July 20 meeting, they would ramp up their efforts to get a ballpark built in Las Vegas or somewhere in southern Nevada near the gambling mecca. A’s President Dave Kaval has traveled to Las Vegas multiple times to scout potential sites and has described the pursuit of a ballpark there as on a “parallel path” to the one in Oakland.

But the council countered with the city’s own version of how the capital improvements should be financed and stated it’s willing to resume negotiations if the A’s agree to its conditions as a starting point.

Negotiations will keep the door open for the team to remain in Oakland — it has insisted the Coliseum is not a viable option after its lease expires in 2024 — but there’s no guarantee. The two sides still have a lot of issues to resolve in addition to the infrastructure financing, such as whether the A’s will provide hundreds of affordable homes as required by city law and millions of dollars in community benefits out of their own pocket.

In the non-binding financial term sheet they released in April, the A’s asked the city to create two tax assessment districts. One would finance improvements such as sidewalks, streets and soil cleanup to prep the 55-acre Howard Terminal site for the ballpark and a village of 3,000 homes, offices, hotels, a performing arts center, open space and parks.

 

A's back in LV scoping sites---

A’s to return to Las Vegas to continue ballpark site search

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/athletics/as-to-return-to-las-vegas-to-continue-ballpark-site-search-2426291/

After a monthlong hiatus, Oakland Athletics brass will return to Southern Nevada this week to continue their search for a site for a Major League Baseball stadium.

Team owner John Fisher and A’s president Dave Kaval plan to be in the Las Vegas Valley Wednesday through Friday, a team spokesperson confirmed Tuesday.

It will mark the fifth time team representatives have been in the area as they explore possible relocation from Oakland. MLB officials gave the A’s permission to explore moving to Las Vegas three months ago, following snags in the process to get a new stadium project going in Oakland.

The A’s and the Oakland City Council have been discussing a $1 billion, 30,000-seat ballpark at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal. Late last month, the city council approved its proposal for a ballpark but the A’s found the offer unacceptable. Negotiations between the two side have resumed in an attempt to bridge their differences.

This week’s trip will include a variety of meetings and site searches — as the A’s done in the past — for a proposed 30,000-seat stadium here. After the group’s fourth trip in July, Kaval said the team had over 20 potential sites on its list.

That list appears to have grown: The team has interest in a site on Las Vegas Boulevard and Warm Springs Road next to the planned Brightline West high-speed train station. It would be accessible from Interstate 15 at Blue Diamond Road, the 215 Beltway at Las Vegas Boulevard or Warm Springs and be a few miles away from the south end of the Las Vegas Strip and McCarran International Airport.

That proximity to McCarran would require further evaluation from the airport and Federal Aviation Administration, according to Chris Jones, airport spokesman.

 

Maybe. But if I were going to buy a piece of property and spend $1B on a structure that would last over 30 years, I'd check out everything too. What's interesting is that they are spending the week in LV after having some "negotiation" meetings in Oakland. To me a move seems more possible than a few weeks ago, but I still think they will stay in Oakland.

I know one thing they are waiting for is a market study of LV for baseball. They want to see if there will be more locals going to the game than visitors and how that relates to the stadium placement. But that to me that shouldn't matter. Look at the Golden Knights. 90% of the people going are locals and its on the Strip.

 

Hmmm... things are getting more serious. Now meeting with the Governor. Same thing happened when the Raiders decided to move. I'm moving the chances of a move up a notch.

A’s Vegas relocation exploration following Raiders blueprint
https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/athletics/as-vegas-relocation-exploration-following-raiders-blueprint-2429056/

As the Oakland Athletics made their fifth visit this week to Las Vegas exploring possible relocation to Southern Nevada, it’s becoming clear that they’re following a similar blueprint to that of the Raiders.Whether that leads to a similar result, a move to Las Vegas, remains to be seen.

Team owner John Fisher and President Dave Kaval made the rounds Wednesday through Friday, meeting with various dignitaries in the Las Vegas Valley, including Gov. Steve Sisolak, local union leaders and hotel-casino operators.After meeting Sisolak during the A’s first trip to Las Vegas in late May at the Las Vegas Convention Center’s West Hall expansion opening gala, the governor invited Kaval and Fisher to meet with him more formally, and they took him up on his offer during this trip. “It’s great to meet with the political leadership,” Kaval said Friday. “We’ve done it at all different levels.”

He said they are doing it “to understand more about the community and the direction which it’s going, the diversification of the economy and what sports means” to Las Vegas.

Kaval said the A’s are going to continue to talk to Sisolak and other elected officials “to ensure that we’re approaching this in a thoughtful and measured way, to get great results and potentially a team in the market.”
The Raiders also worked with then Clark County Commissioner Sisolak and now former governor Brian Sandoval during their relocation process.

Sisolak said the early talks he’s had with the A’s, the NBA and MLS officials have been exploratory in nature, but are tracking similar to the process that landed Las Vegas the Golden Knights and Raiders.

“When I was on the county commission, I had a lot of discussion with (NHL Commissioner) Gary Bettman and with the NFL about them coming here,” Sisolak said. “Those are discussions that took place over a long period of time. Then once they finally committed, once Bill Foley got the Knights, once the Raiders decided they were moving here, they intensified and became a lot more detailed. I think we’re going to experience the same thing if in fact that happens with baseball or MLS.”

Billionaires Wes Edens and Nassef Sawiris, who co-own the Premier League’s Aston Villa soccer club, are reported to be interested in bringing an MLS team to Las Vegas. They recently filed to trademark the name Las Vegas Villains for a potential sports team.

Kaval said a point of emphasis on the A’s trip was to meet with local union leaders, meeting with Culinary Union Local 226 President Ted Pappageorge and Laborers Local 872 secretary-treasurer Tommy White.

“Really to get to know their points of view, their thoughts, a team coming and just making sure that we’re doing everything we can to learn about the community,” Kaval said.

White represents another Raiders tie-in. He was a key figure leading up to Senate Bill 1 being signed that secured the $750 million in public funding and sits on the Stadium Authority board as well. Fisher and Kaval met with White Friday before traveling back to Oakland to catch the A’s game versus the New York Yankees.

“We talked to him about locations and the mix of locals versus tourists, ensuring we were accessible to both,” Kaval said. “We want to make sure that we do things right, that we learn from the key people in the community that have been there for generations. We think that’s a key way of doing that, sitting down with folks like Tommy and other folks in the labor movement.”

The A’s group also met with another key player in the Raiders’ move, financial analyst Jeremey Aguero, a principal with Applied Analysis and staff for the Las Vegas Stadium Authority.

“We had a good initial meeting,” Kaval said. “We need to figure out the economic impact of the team coming.”

The A’s have conducted focus groups in Seattle, Los Angeles and Texas surveying baseball fans’ interest in attending home games in Las Vegas if the team ultimately relocates to Southern Nevada.

The A’s have used the Legends Hospitality group out of Dallas to conduct a market feasibility report of Las Vegas. Kaval said early returns are showing “there’s a lot of sports fans, especially baseball fans in Southern Nevada, and those folks are excited” about having a major league franchise.

“Obviously the Aviators are case in point,” Kaval said. “But having a major league team is really exciting. It’s nice to see that. The study is not over … but the initial reports have been very, very solid about the strength of the local market.” Kaval said fan access is a key consideration when deciding where to build a ballpark in Las Vegas. To that end, he said the A’s have hired Kimley-Horn, a parking and transportation consultant, to carry out a transportation study, something that the Raiders also did.

A parcel of land on Las Vegas Boulevard and Warm Springs Road, which is next to land where Brightline West plans to build its high-speed rail station, was toured by A’s brass this week. The site not only would be next to the train station, but also would be accessible via Interstate 15 from Blue Diamond Road, the 215 Beltway from Las Vegas Boulevard. It is a short distance from the south end of the Las Vegas Strip and a few miles from McCarran International Airport.

Kaval said the team and city of Oakland officials remain at odds over the proposal for a new stadium in Oakland that was approved July 20 by the city council, as the two sides continue to negotiate their differences.

“We were really disappointed they voted on something that we really had never seen and we remain apart with the city of Oakland on an economic deal,” Kaval said. “We’re kind of waiting to see what happens with the county, which is a key part of the city’s financing plan. We’re working hard in Las Vegas to see if that is a viable market for the A’s, and we’re working hard in Oakland to see where that process ends up.”

Kaval said the team plans to make a sixth visit to the valley in two weeks.

 

A’s express frustration in latest setback for ballpark in Oakland

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/athletics/as-express-frustration-in-latest-setback-for-ballpark-in-oakland-2429727/
Another black mark in the Oakland deal with Alem

The Oakland Athletics’ push to land a Bay Area ballpark in Howard Terminal hit another snag Friday after the Alameda County administrator expressed hesitancy to opt into a proposed tax district to help fund it .“We continue to seem to go sideways with these efforts in Oakland, and that’s a big problem,” A’s president Dave Kaval said Sunday. “So we need to see real material progress, and I think the league (MLB) feels the same way.

“Things have really been positive in Vegas, especially with our trip last week and the momentum we have.”The A’s have made five trips to Southern Nevada to explore possible relocation to the Las Vegas Valley. They are planning another trip in a couple of weeks, Kaval said.

In the city of Oakland’s proposal the city council approved in July — one the A’s didn’t agree with — a tax district is planned to generate money to repay the team for infrastructure-related costs at the site of a planned waterfront ballpark site.

As late as Friday, Kaval had expressed the team’s dismay that the city voted on its own proposal and not the one the A’s presented to the city. The A’s proposal didn’t include the requirement to have the county on board with the tax district, as the city’s does, Kaval said.

In a letter sent Friday to Oakland city administrator Edward Reiskin by Alameda County administrator Susan Muranishi, concern was raised regarding how the A’s responded to the city’s counterproposal for the proposed $12 billion Howard Terminal ballpark development. Muranishi sent a similar letter to the city, noting the county’s concerns with perceived issues between them and the A’s following the July 20 meeting at which the city council approved its own proposal.

“Based on Kaval’s consistent statement of disappointment that the city did not vote on the A’s proposal, it is apparent that the chasm between the A’s proposal and the city’s counterproposal is not limited to whether the county will join the city’s proposed Infrastructure Financing District,” Muranishi’s letter read. “It appears that the hurdles in the city’s counterproposal include economic impacts of proposed community benefit obligations, affordable housing obligations, as well as the contingency that shifts economic costs to the county. … It remains unclear that the A’s will complete a deal with Oakland even if the county agreed to join the IFD.”

Kaval called the development concerning, as the A’s were hoping to have the county vote on its possible involvement in the tax district next month, something that Muranishi’s letter noted no longer would occur. “It’s really disappointing to see what’s happening with these letters from the county,” Kaval said. “This is injecting a lot more uncertainty in Oakland and getting to a deal. We’re still working hard to see if we can bridge the gap, but this is another big complication.”

Kaval said the A’s are waiting to hear back from the city to determine what this means or if it is willing to revise its proposal, with the county removed from the equation. If not, it’s unclear if plans could move forward in the Bay Area. “It may create an insurmountable gap on the financial side,” Kaval said.

Muranishi noted the county wanted to meet with city officials in September, but added that the questions surrounding the negotiations between the city and the A’s and final results from an environmental impact review weren’t expected until year’s end.

“This again confirms that county staff will not return to the board of supervisors in September with recommendations,” Muranishi wrote. “The current status is too speculative and uncertain for the county to move forward now and commit limited staff and financial resources on a costly independent analysis. We welcome ongoing updates from the city as your negotiations with the A’s progress to help inform the timing of our next steps.”

If the county and city’s meeting resulted in a vote by Alameda officials in October, that would still fit in the A’s time frame to have an answer in Oakland. “That would be significant if that, in fact, happens,” Kaval said. “I don’t know if that will happen. At some point, all these loose ends need to be tied up. As they continue to be out there festering, it’s concerning for the success of the project.”

 

A's proposed ballpark in jeopardy after Alameda County delays vote on helping Oakland fund it

https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/Alameda-County-rejects-Oakland-s-request-to-16418767.php

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors will not vote in September on the Oakland A’s $12 billion plan to build a waterfront ballpark and development at Howard Terminal in Jack London Square — causing what the team says is a “potentially insurmountable” financial gap in getting the project done in Oakland.

The city asked Alameda County in May to opt into a tax district to help with infrastructure costs. In response, supervisors said in June the earliest they could vote would be September. The city has said that without county help it’s unlikely the project can move forward.

The A’s have said they hoped to have a final vote from the Oakland City Council on the terms of the project by the end of baseball season in October. The city said it hopes to have approvals and documents ready for a final vote by the end of the year.

The tax district is a key part of the negotiations between the A’s and the city, which are ongoing. If the team and the city don’t agree on the financial terms of the project, then the A’s could leave Oakland. By opting into the tax district, the county would have given up a portion of their property taxes on the actual stadium site to help fund infrastructure costs.

Alameda County Administrator Susan Muranishi sent two letters to Oakland City Administrator Ed Reiskin questioning the terms of the project and negotiations with the team.
In a letter sent on Aug. 5, Muranishi said the Board of Supervisors could not vote in September since the project’s terms had not yet been agreed on and asked for the city to provide additional information on a final deal. She doubled down in a second letter sent on Friday to city leadership.

“The current status is too speculative and uncertain for the County to move forward now and commit limited staff and financial resources on a costly independent analysis,” Muranishi wrote.

Muranishi said in her Friday letter that none of the materials provided by the city “addressed how the Oakland A’s responded” to the city’s July counterproposal.

She noted that the economic deal terms would “not be known anytime soon” and key factors relating to the environmental review will not be known until the end of the year.

Muranishi said it is unclear whether the A’s will reach a deal with Oakland even with county buy-in.

Muranishi said given the uncertainty, county staff will not make recommendations to the supervisors for a September vote. She encouraged city staff to keep the county updated on their negotiations with the A’s. It is unclear whether the board could vote to opt in to the tax district at a later time.

Dave Kaval, the president of the A’s, said Saturday the team is trying to make sense of what the county’s decision not to vote in September means for the project’s future.

“We are trying to work in good faith to understand if we can bridge these divides,” Kaval said. “Without the county, there is increasing concern on our side that the financial gap is potentially insurmountable.”

Kaval said the letters pose a challenge for the future of the team in Oakland.

“That indicates there is not currently a plan that’s politically feasible for the city that they are willing to go forward with,” he said. “We are going to need an economic arrangement with the city of Oakland for this to work and at the current time, we do not have that.”

The A’s project includes a $1 billion privately financed, 35,000-seat waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal, 3,000 residential units, up to 1.5 million square feet of commercial space, up to 270,000 square feet for retail, an indoor 3,500-seat performance center, 400 hotel rooms and up to 18 acres of publicly accessible open space.

The Oakland City Council voted on July 20 to approve a non-binding term sheet with the A’s against the team’s wishes. The term sheet called for one tax district with county involvement. The county was expected to vote on joining the tax district in September, which now appears to be off the table.

The A’s expressed disappointment that the council did not vote on the team’s term sheet released in April that called for two tax districts.

Infrastructure tax financing districts are created to fund public infrastructure projects and are commonly used for big development projects. The A’s proposed one over a large swath of Jack London Square to generate $1.4 billion to help cover infrastructure costs, in addition to another district covering the actual stadium and development area.

In an Aug. 27 response to the county, Reiskin called the project a “very high priority for Oakland and our region.”

“Time is of the essence now as we work together to keep the A’s rooted in Oakland,” he wrote.

Reiskin said the city offered to meet with county staff during the week of Aug. 16 to provide more information. But instead, the city received a letter that same day that the county would not move forward with a September vote.

Reiskin said in his letter on Friday that his staff will send an economic analysis of the project, a memo detailing the county’s potential participation in the tax district and other information in a week. He urged a meeting with city staff and said the city is willing to discuss reimbursement for county or consultant staff time spent analyzing the tax district proposal.

Even before the council’s July vote, the A’s were touring Las Vegas for alternate ballpark sites. In August, Kaval said the team is in ongoing negotiations with Oakland, but that it intends to continue exploring other options in Las Vegas.

In the letter sent Friday, Muranishi said the city did not address all the county’s concerns in the information provided.

 

A subtle ad to the Oakland A's management....

 

Alameda County to A’s: Slow down, cowboy

https://ballparkdigest.com/2021/08/30/alameda-county-to-as-slow-down-cowboy/

 

A’s train their sights on Angels fans riding rails to Vegas

https://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/story/2021-08-31/las-vegas-oakland-athletics-angels-high-speed-rail

Would you take a high-speed train to watch the Angels play in Las Vegas? The Oakland Athletics would like to know, as they decide whether to become the Las Vegas Athletics.

On their fifth scouting trip to Nevada last week, the A’s explored an intriguing location for a potential ballpark: next to a possible train station, where high-speed-rail passengers from Southern California would end their trip to Las Vegas. In theory, you could get off the train and walk right over to the ballpark.

The A’s have commissioned focus groups to ask fans of the Angels and other American League West rivals about “interest in attending home games in Las Vegas if the team ultimately relocates to Southern Nevada,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported last week. Fans of the Houston Astros, Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers could fly to Las Vegas, and the possible ballpark site would be about 10 minutes from the airport. The Angels would be the only AL West rival whose fans would be based close enough to fly, drive or take the train

That might be a more reliably attractive proposition for fans of the Chargers, a team that plays one game in Las Vegas each season. If the A’s were to move to Las Vegas, the Angels would play nine or 10 games there each year. For the record: The A’s have not settled on a ballpark site in Las Vegas, secured funding for a ballpark there, or committed to move there.

As anyone who has returned from Las Vegas via Interstate 15 on any given traffic-choked Sunday knows, a high-speed rail route between Vegas and Southern California likely would be a rousing success. But we’ve known that since at least the 1980s, when a group called the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission recommended a route from Las Vegas to Anaheim. We’re still waiting on that, and on the Los Angeles to San Francisco high-speed line approved by California voters in 2008.

And the current proposal for high-speed rail between Las Vegas and Southern California calls for a southern terminal in Victorville, with hopes to extend the line into the Greater Los Angeles area at a later date.

In the meantime, if you want to take a train to watch the Angels play, there is a train station adjacent to the Angel Stadium parking lot. The station is outfitted for high-speed rail, if it ever comes.