Baseball Toaster Catfish Stew
Help
STOP CASTING POROSITY! An Oakland Athletics blog.
Frozen Toast
Search
Google Search
Web
Toaster
Catfish Stew
Archives

2009
02  01 

2008
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2007
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2006
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2005
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  01 

2004
12  09  08  01 

2003
12  11  10  09  08 
Email Us

Ken: catfish AT zombia d.o.t. com
Ryan: rarmbrust AT gmail d.o.t. com
Philip: kingchimp AT alamedanet d.o.t net

Ken's Greatest Hits
28 Aug 2003
12 Jan 2004
31 May 2005
11 May 2005
29 Jun 2005
8 Jun 2005
19 Jul 2005
11 Aug 2005
7 Sep 2005
20 Sep 2005
22 Sep 2005
26 Sep 2005
28 Sep 2005
29 Sep 2005
18 Oct 2005
9 Nov 2005
15 Nov 2005
20 Nov 2005

13 Dec 2005
19 Jan 2006
28 Jan 2006
21 Feb 2006
10 Apr 2006
16 Apr 2006
22 Apr 2006
7 May 2006
25 May 2006
31 May 2006
18 Jun 2006
22 Jun 2006
6 Jul 2006
17 Jul 2006
13 Aug 2006
15 Aug 2006
16 Aug 2006
20 Aug 2006
11 Oct 2006
31 Oct 2006
29 Dec 2006
4 Jan 2006
12 Jan 2006
27 Jan 2007
17 Feb 2007
30 Apr 2007
27 Aug 2007
5 Sep 2007
19 Oct 2007
23 Nov 2007
5 Jan 2008
16 Jan 2008
4 Feb 2008
7 May 2008
20 Jun 2008
4 Feb 2008
SF Chronicle Interviews Wolff
2006-01-22 08:33
by Ken Arneson

The San Francisco Chronicle has an interesting interview with A's owner Lew Wolff today.

Juicy tidbit, about how to finance the new park:

Cities don't have a lot of money these days, and when they go into the bonding capacity, at the end of the day, the city is on the hook no matter if you have a joint powers agreement or you have a parking bond or revenue bond or tax increment bond.

What cities do have, especially in the area of growth, and the Bay Area, good or bad, is growing, whether it's growing right or not is not my decision totally, they have zoning rights. We call them entitlements; you're entitled to build 1,000 apartment units.

Those entitlements are the new currency, in my opinion, for cities, governments and regionals and counties and so forth.

More interesting notes:

  • The existing landowners north of the Coliseum wanted too much money. "Now all of a sudden, land that looked like it was $20 a square foot, they hear the A's are there, all of a sudden, it's Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills."
     
  • In order to build a new park on the existing Coliseum site, the Coliseum board would probably have to acquire the old Home Base property on Hegenberger, for parking.
     
  • First priority is Oakland, then Fremont and San Jose.
     

Reading between the lines, it seems that Wolff thinks a deal with the Giants over San Jose should be possible. I'd guess that the best way to get those rights is to threaten to build in Fremont. Fremont is in the A's territory, where the Giants would get no compensation, but close enough to San Jose that the A's would siphon off a lot of Silicon Valley revenue. Would the Giants rather have the A's in Fremont and get no compensation, or have them in San Jose and receive $100 million (or whatever it would cost)?

Comments
2006-01-22 09:00:54
1.   Bob Timmermann
Time to ask my Alameda County planning office person just what Wolff means.
2006-01-22 14:03:02
2.   Mark Linsey
Interesting interview.

I thought this was an amusing Fruedian slip:
"Unfortunately, I'm a close friend of the commissioner (Bud Selig).:

2006-01-22 17:02:29
3.   joejoejoe
Is the compensation and territory infringement for moving franchises (Nats to Orioles territory) spelled out in any MLB document or handled on a case by case basis?
2006-01-23 09:41:33
4.   Ken Arneson
Case by case, I'm sure. The Nats deal involved the O's getting a large majority stake in a new regional cable TV network that includes both teams, plus a guarantee on the price of the Orioles should Peter Angelos decide to sell. Those forms of compensation probably wouldn't apply to the A's-Giants situation.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.