Study: New ballpark would bring billions of dollars to Oakland, Alameda County
Claiming they are still in the game when it comes to keeping the A’s in Oakland, city officials and others trying to keep the team in town released results of a study Wednesday claiming a new waterfront baseball park is worth millions to the city’s coffers and billions to the local economy.
The study, commissioned by the nonprofit group Let’s Go Oakland, claims that building a new 36,000-seat, $500 million baseball-only stadium in the city’s Jack London Square area immediately would create 1,661 new construction jobs in Oakland while also generating about $2.6 billion in total economic activity for the city over the next 30 years.
“We really need and want the A’s to stay in Oakland,” said City Council President Jane Brunner. “The real reason we need to have the Oakland A’s is for economic development.”
What say the FKers?
Cool. Do it. Can it be finished in 2 years?
Thanks, and go As.
Nope. Not even if it’s in San Jose.
Hmmm … doesn’t every other independent report disprove the ballpark-as-economic-driver theory?
that’s what I thought. I think Jeffro was saying when the SJ study came out that the other studies consider public money going into the stadium which would be a money loser. But if Someone else is paying for the stadium, then others can make money just fine.
It doesn’t really matter who is paying for the stadium if you’re talking about the number of jobs created. That’s what they’re talking about and money changing hands.
Both of you are right: the preponderance of reputable studies disproves the economic driver claims, but all of those studies have been done in the 100% public financing era, which at least in California is gone, likely forever (and good riddance). It seems intuitive, but has not been studied AFAIK, that if some private concern funds the ediface, the public benefit might be a net positive.
Two other important considerations: first, in Oakland’s case, since they already have a team, there’s no question but that the loss of that team would be an economic blow…taxes from payroll and parking and concessions, lease revenue, and whatever ancilliary fan spending exists (and some does, crummy Coli neighborhood notwithstanding). In addition, the actual act of constructing a stadium is a huge boon for construction and related support industries (jobs derived from ongoing stadium ops, not so much). Local businesses and unions would benefit greatly from a ballpark, and if you know any union construction workers, you know they really, really need the work. That of course would be true wherever a park is built…as an East Bay guy, I of course want that benefit derived here.
I haven’t read the report…it’s actually sitting on my desk right now…but I suspect I’ll agree with ML’s take, that all of these economic impact analyses are dubious, but that those who project conservatively (as both Oakland and SJ apparently do) deserve credit for doing so.
The MLB panel is way too savvy to be fooled by anyone’s bogus numbers. Oakland’s seems to have basically called SJ’s similar report, in an effort to remove that question from the panel’s calculus. Which is as it should be…to the extent it’s proper for MLB to bequeath stadium rights on any locality (anti-trust etc), it should weigh what’s best for the franchise and best for the league. What’s best for the competing communities is a nice discussion, and it’s obviously important to me, but it’s a virtually incalculable comparison, and probably not a major concern of MLB’s, certainly not from a business standpoint.
I haven’t read it, but it’s my understanding that the attendance numbers wouldn’t go up much from the norm. Assuming SJ numbers are the same, if you had to choose between the same number of fans per game between Oakland and San Jose, doesn’t it come back around to Corporate sponsorship and which 1.X million fans you can get to pay more to show up? All else being equal, who’s going to net the team more cash?
Seems like you could get the corporate sponsors you would need for a nice new park whether it’s in Oakland or San Jose. I mean it might take more work in Oakland, but you know the old saying… if you build it and all.
Meh. When it comes to the Fortune 500s et al. It’s just not in Oakland. New park or not, if you’re looking for a supply, you need to head to SJ. If you want to make serious money, you don’t want to be in a position of harder demand, you’re not going to make nearly as much.
Well, maybe there are other factors to consider besides the “serious” money. Or have you not paid attention to recent events?
Such as?
I’m really sad–and somewhat ashamed–that I missed this event today in the neighboring town:
seppukusudoku is your only path to redemption. Ed note: fixedNeil deMause from Field of Schemes weighs in
BOOOOOOOOOOOOO. On the last sentence anyway.
Who is this fucking twat? A Giants fan?
your beard is weird
Coliseum sign policy unconstitutional, opines Oakland City Attorney:
It’s a publicly owned stadium rented out to host a private event. It’s not a publicly sponsored event nor a publicly run event. Not sure how the 1st Amendment really applies.
I’m waiting for “open carry night.”
(Yes, yes: as opposed to the A’s torrent-of-pig’s-blood decimation of the relief corps the first 2 weeks of the season — bullpen Carrie night.)
Be interesting to see if the guy sues.
So typical of the crappy relationship between the a’s and the city of oakland. The stadium-building plans are ludicrous even if they were based on real economics because the a’s are never going to do a deal with oakland – why should they? The city support of the team as in cops & traffic control is minimal, far below any major league stadium i have ever seen. A few gratuitous shots from the city attorney fits right in.
Since the team pays all City-County costs of cops and traffic control, any shortcomings you see there are 100% the fault of the franchise.
And according to Russo, at least, legal precedent suggests that publicly owned facillities do have to respect free speech rights, albeit as a “limited public forum” and subject to restrictions, so long as those are defensible. For example, I imagine the A’s can defend their policy against parading signs around the ballpark, or against a sign that says Fuck Lew Wolff, but a sign hung from the bleachers in accordance with the same standards that “Fear Mecir” or “Kotsay’s Korner” has been displayed, but which instead said “Lew Wolff Lied To Us” would be hard to regulate against. You can’t pick and choose what kinds of speech you’ll allow.
I’m curious though. Is that considered slander/liable if it’s put in sign form for all to read?
Not if he’s a public figure, or the statement is true.
Slander/libel cases are very very hard.
But it’s true that showing that sign would qualify as “publication”