Pictures of a waterfront stadium for the Oakland A’s at Howard Terminal are glamorous, but the site near Jack London Square and the politics pushing that solution are dark, murky and may pose a real threat to the Port’s economy.
Last July, when the Port of Oakland settled a lawsuit with SSA Terminals to move from Howard Terminal to a mega-terminal elsewhere in the port, unions and port businesses sounded a warning about putting a ballpark there.
The unions said the deal could expose the port to retaliatory lawsuits from other waterfront conglomerates seeking similar concessions. Last month, unions citing the 73,000 jobs the port generates across the Bay Area urged the Port to continue to use Howard Terminal for maritime purposes.
Did the port commissioners listen? No. Instead, these appointees of Mayor Jean Quan rejected three maritime proposals for the 50-acre site, and left open the door for local businessmen to work their political ties with Quan for an A’s waterfront ballpark.
Now a letter is circulating that shows the potential danger this waterfront ballpark can pose to the port, according to those who have seen the letter.
Several port businesses have written to Quan and Port Executive Director Chris Lytle asking how the city and port plan to address traffic, pollution, environmental, health, density and other port issues that come with putting a stadium smack in the heart of the nation’s fifth busiest port.
Sources familiar with the letter said these companies have invested millions of dollars and employ thousands of people in the port. Given this investment, they ask Quan about concerns that arise from the proposed ballpark and her political support for that proposal and changing the industrial zoning of the area.
Their concerns included impact on energy infrastructure uses around Howard Terminal, who pays to relocate businesses from near the site, how to safeguard against stadium negative impact on port traffic needs and existing port operations, and, where the city relocate industrial uses now near Howard Terminal.
The Port’s own staff had raised other issues in a report last September to commissioners. They said a non-maritime use on the site, like a ballpark, would raise obstacles for environmental, maritime, pollution, traffic and density concerns that would take years to overcome, they warned. Lew Wolff, part owner of the A’s flatly said in December he did not want a waterfront stadium.
Before you scratch your heads, there’s more.
Wolff and Mark Davis are talking separately with developers at Coliseum City about an alternative proposal to keep all three teams – A’s, Raiders and Warriors – at their current home. This plan is an 800-acre sports, housing and retail complex, with new, deep-pocket investors who can turn a pipedream there into a reality.
Still, the business quartet of Clorox President Don Knauss, Signature Developer head Michael Ghielmetti, Dreyers Ice Cream CEO Gary Rogers and former lobbyist Doug Boxer plows ahead with their own development agenda – coincidentally Ghielmetti has a major development nearby in Brooklyn Basin. No one wants to address the fact that Howard Terminal would only keep one team in Oakland, and this proposal is bound to raise major environmental, maritime use, traffic and pollution concerns that do not apply to Coliseum City. And is anyone out there asking if Oakland can afford both projects?
When Port Commissioners voted last month to reject three maritime proposals that would continue to use Howard Terminal for bulk shipping or port purposes, several speakers made the point that the commissioners should make sure any use of the site is compatible with the port’s needs and potential.
Instead, Howard Terminal has significant contamination and environmental issues that opponents can exploit through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processes, it lacks dirct access to mass transit (the closest BART stations West Oakland and 12th Street are each nearly one mile away from HT) and the Port faces a revenue shortfall of $10 million a year it is losing since SSA cut short its lease by four years as part of the settlement.
One last note: The San Francisco and Oakland newspapers have not reported extensively on many of these issues. Were it not for Rhamesis Muncada’s thorough coverage in his blog newballpark.org, we would be much more in the dark and murk.
It’s also curious that little or no coverage was given to Coliseum City’s meeting with 150 sports fans in February. See our report from the February 6 meeting. Curious.
