All Out! No More Tax Dollars for Billionaire Fisher's Stadium

Billionaire GAP & A's Owner John Fisher's Corrupt Condo Hotel Development Scam Will Destroy Port Of Oakland
Oakland A’s ballpark plan threatens jobs, port operations
Team President Dave Kaval pushing elitist, bogus notion that Howard Terminal site is currently inactive
https://www.marinij.com/2019/11/17/opinion-oakland-as-ballpark-plan-threatens-jobs-port-operations/?fbclid=IwAR2EZnehzZciUgwUJI3jo5KRtiWD3YfSbLFvjiujg_MSQq4_yJSRrpbqA34

OAKLAND, CA – NOVEMBER 28: Howard Terminal and the Oakland Estuary is seen in this drone view over Oakland, Calif., on Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2018. The Oakland Athletics announced today they plan to build a new ballpark on the Howard Terminal waterfront site. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)

By ANDY GARCIA |
PUBLISHED: November 17, 2019 at 6:10 am | UPDATED: November 17, 2019 at 6:14 am
In a drive to move Oakland’s last remaining professional sports team to the city’s working waterfront, A’s president Dave Kaval continues to push a false narrative that threatens economic opportunity and thousands of jobs that would be lost if the team prevails with its plans.

Kaval claims that his plan for a stadium and high-end development project at Howard Terminal will “activate” the waterfront, mischaracterizing the absolute necessity of this staging area, where more than 322,000 truckers moved containers of goods in and out of the Port of Oakland just last year.

“Activate” is a buzzword for developers and elected officials. It’s that shiny object that attracts and mesmerizes — while sidelining sound decision-making that makes for good policy.

This parcel generated nearly $6.5 million for the Port of Oakland in 2018, and serves as a transportation hub for the eighth busiest port in the United States. Its position as a staging area is critical for maintaining timely operations for containerized goods to flow smoothly to and from the port. Truckers facilitating deliveries to and from the port for import and export often need to wait for shipments at Howard Terminal all day or overnight, while at the same time plugging in refrigerated containers.

It is illogical to assume that this activity can efficiently take place elsewhere on the streets of Oakland or peacefully coexist alongside an “activated” real estate development and amusement area. The less flashy behind-the-scenes work of blue-collar men and women is what fuels our economy and keeps it moving.

Equally egregious is Kaval implying that the Port of Oakland is somehow inactive and underutilized. Insinuating that the port, which moves 99% of containerized goods in Northern California, needs luxury housing, a stadium and office space in order to become “activated” is insulting to our industry, and frankly elitist.

A recent economic impact report estimates the Port’s economic value at $130 billion. That’s 19 times the economic benefit the proposed development would generate in the first 10 years. It is clear that baseball is not needed to “activate” Oakland’s waterfront.

Considering all this, how can Howard Terminal, with its current use, be anything but critical to the economic success of Oakland? For Kaval and proponents of the Howard Terminal project to falsely call the area an “unused concrete slab” is blatantly dishonest.This narrative does not reflect the irreparable damage to Port of Oakland operations and economic output that will result from converting Howard Terminal to a luxury development. Nor does the narrative reflect the conflicts – traffic congestion and constrained cargo growth – that will arise between the seaport and stadium. These conflicts will interfere with Oakland’s competitiveness, driving customers to other, more efficient ports on the West Coast.

While Kaval suggests that Howard Terminal is unused, I invite you to come visit our truckers and waterfront workers to learn more about what drives economic output, creates good jobs and supports working communities and families. These are the real activators in Oakland.

Andy Garcia is chairman of the board and executive vice president of GSC Logistics, which provides drayage services at the Oakland Port.



Alameda County supes to discuss pivotal funding issue for A's Howard Terminal ballpark project
Sarah Ravani
Oct. 6, 2021
Updated: Oct. 6, 2021 6:15 p.m.
On Oct. 26, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will discuss its next steps on a proposal from the Oakland A’s for a $12 billion plan waterfront ballpark and development at Howard Terminal in Oakland.
Jessica Christian/The Chronicle
https://www.sfchronicle.com/.../Alameda-County-supes-to...
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors will discuss on Oct. 26 the Oakland A’s $12 billion plan to build a waterfront ballpark and development at Howard Terminal near Jack London Square, according to a letter obtained by The Chronicle.
The city of Oakland asked Alameda County in May to opt into a tax district to help with infrastructure costs; a few weeks later, supervisors said the earliest they could vote would be in September. But in August, the county administrator sent a letter to the city stating that the board could not vote in September since the project’s terms had not yet been agreed upon with the team, and asked the city to provide additional information. Since then, city and county staff have met to go over project details.
The planned discussion among supervisors is a key step to advancing the project as the A’s continue studying alternate sites in Las Vegas. The city has said that without county help on the infrastructure financing district, the project cannot work. At stake are thousands of homes, scores of new jobs and economic development that Oakland is hungry for. If the A’s leave, they’d be the third professional sports team to depart the city in recent years.
But the county might not be as eager to make a deal. If the county decides to opt into the tax district, it would be giving up a portion of its property taxes on the stadium site to help fund infrastructure costs.
Oakland City Council approves terms for Howard Terminal ballpark against A's wishes, but team undecided on next steps
Still, if the stadium gets built, the county stands to benefit. Currently, the county receives about $70,000 per year from property taxes from the proposed ballpark site. If the ballpark project is built today, the county would receive about $10.7 million in property taxes per year, according to Century Urban, the city’s consultant that has been studying the project.
The board’s Oct. 26 agenda won’t be publicly available until Oct. 21, according to the county. It’s unclear if the county will actually vote that day to join the infrastructure financing district or merely discuss it.
On Sept. 27, Keith Carson, the president of the Board of Supervisors, sent a letter to Liz Ortega-Toro of the Alameda Labor Council and Andreas Cluver of the Alameda County Building & Construction Trades Council.
Carson said the board will “place further discussion” of the proposed waterfront ballpark project on the agenda for its last scheduled October meeting. In his letter, he said city staff and the A’s have had more than a year to study the project’s details, and county staff “are still working 24 hours a day, seven days a week attempting to address all the challenges” of the pandemic.
“Given the magnitude of this issue and the fact that it has been stated many times publicly by the A’s representative that a final decision date on this project is December,” Carson wrote that the earliest the supervisors could discuss the ballpark is Oct. 26.
“Even then this will be taking valuable time and attention away from the daily/weekly decisions that are required to address the ongoing challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency on Alameda County residents,” Carson wrote.
The A’s did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In September, Dave Kaval said the team plans to narrow its list of potential new stadium sites in the Las Vegas area by early November. The A’s said they are pursuing “parallel paths” in Oakland and Las Vegas for a new ballpark.
Ortega-Toro, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Alameda Labor Council, told The Chronicle that her group is thankful the board will take up the discussion later this month.
“The Howard Terminal ballpark project is critical for working families, the city has weighed in with a ‘yes’ vote, and we are appreciative of the work that our county supervisors are putting in to help keep the A’s in Oakland at our beautiful Jack London waterfront,” she said.
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 city hopes to have a final environmental review, development agreement and planning commission approvals ready for a vote by the City Council by the end of the year.
In July, the Oakland City Council voted to approve a non-binding term sheet with the A’s that called for the creation of a single tax district with county involvement. That went against the wishes of the team, which had sought two special tax districts.
Sarah Ravani is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: sravani [at] sfchronicle.com Twitter: @SarRavani
SF John Fisher Billionaire Owner Of GAP, KIPP Schools and A's Cynical Land Grab
The Oakland A's stadium plan is a cynical cash grab
https://www.sfchronicle.com/.../Editorial-The-Oakland-A-s...
The Oakland A's stadium plan is a cynical cash grab
SF John Fisher Billionaire Owner Of GAP, KIPP Schools and A's Cynical Land Grab
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-The-Oakland-A-s-stadium-plan-is-a-16177915.php
The Oakland A's stadium plan is a cynical cash grab
Chronicle Editorial Board
May 14, 2021
Updated: May 14, 2021 6:12 p.m.
Port of Oakland is filled with containers on Thursday, April 8, 2021 in Oakland, Calif. The Oakland A's have publicly committed to building a new stadium and developing the area around the ballpark with residential and commercial infrastructure at Howard Terminal in the Port of Oakland. However, shipping companies that use the working port argue the plan would have a serious negative impact on the port's operations and future growth.
Port of Oakland is filled with containers on Thursday, April 8, 2021 in Oakland, Calif. The Oakland A's have publicly committed to building a new stadium and developing the area around the ballpark with residential and commercial infrastructure at Howard Terminal in the Port of Oakland. However, shipping companies that use the working port argue the plan would have a serious negative impact on the port’s operations and future growth.Paul Kuroda/Special to The Chronicle
The Oakland A’s are threatening to leave town as the franchise negotiates to build a new stadium on port property, the political equivalent of a pitch to the batter’s head. But city officials shouldn’t allow themselves to be intimidated into dropping legitimate questions about the team’s offer — or into dropping a container-ship-sized public subsidy on a lucrative private business.
The current choice of locations for the new stadium, the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal site, raises at least as many issues as the team’s abortive plan to relocate to land on Laney College’s campus. Mayor Libby Schaaf’s administration is supportive of the idea of a stadium on the Oakland waterfront — and the housing that would come along with it. But backing the plan in principle doesn’t mean the city should shy away from scrutinizing the A’s proposal to spend upward of $855 million in tax revenue on the project. On Friday, Oakland City Council leadership asked Major League Baseball to negotiate in good faith over the stadium — as it should. The league’s audacious demands for public investment hint at both old-fashioned greed and how complicated it will be to make the proposed site suitable for a stadium.
Sure, the A’s say the deal will pay for itself in tax revenue and community assets, but the history of publicly subsidized stadium deals is littered with promises of public benefits that prove false. Study after study has shown that stadiums and arenas provide little in the way of tangible benefits for local economies despite pro sports cartels’ endless claims to the contrary.
The proposed stadium’s proximity to the port is one potential source of unnecessary complexity and cost. In contrast to the Giants, who relocated to an area within walking distance of downtown and public transportation, the Oakland stadium would be next to one of the busiest container ports in the country, with fewer feasible transit options.
Oakland A's Relocation
Then there’s the team’s current site, the obvious advantages of which loom over every attempt to relocate the stadium. With a BART station named after it, the Coliseum already has transit access, and its acres of asphalt present ample opportunities for creative redevelopment. MLB’s recent assertion that the Coliseum site is “not a viable option” for a new park is dubious given that the A’s saw fit to buy half the site from Alameda County and have offered to buy the rest from the city.
It’s often noted that Oakland has lost two pro teams in recent years as a way of suggesting the city must hang on to the A’s. But the departure of the Raiders and the Warriors could just as easily be framed as evidence that the city can endure such a loss again. Yes, Oakland should keep the A’s if it can, but not at any significant cost to a city that has plenty of other assets and needs.
Moreover, elements of the stadium plan are clearly half-baked. For instance, the A’s don’t seem to think separating new pedestrian corridors from train traffic is worthy of their attention.
Because nothing says “take me out to the ballgame” like thousands of drunk revelers interacting unencumbered with heavy rail.
Other designs are similarly flawed.
Oakland needs more housing. It desperately needs more affordable housing. But $855 million can build plenty of new homes without footing the bill for a pretty new baseball stadium. If the A’s are going to put on the squeeze, they at least owe the place they’ve called home for more than five decades the dignity of a plan that gives the appearance of something more than a naked cash grab.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Oakland urges Alameda County support of new ballpark tax district
https://ballparkdigest.com/.../oakland-urges-alameda.../
by Kevin Reichard on October 20, 2021 in Future Ballparks, Major-League Baseball
As a key Alameda County meeting regarding participation in a new tax district to benefit a waterfront Oakland Athletics ballpark approaches, Oakland city officials are urging supervisors to support the effort.
The city of Oakland and the A’s have already come to an agreement on the creation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to fund infrastructure upgrades in the Howard Terminal area. The A’s have proposed a downtown Howard Terminal waterfront development featuring $12 billion in private investment, including a billion dollars for a new 34,000-capacity ballpark to replace the Coliseum. The development would also include 3,000 units of housing, as well as 1.5 million square feet of office space, 270,000 square feet of retail space, a 400-room hotel, 18 acres of parkland and an estimated $450 million in community benefits.
The EIFD would benefit all businesses in the general area, not just the new A’s ballpark, but obviously the new development would be the biggest beneficiary of the fund. Oakland city officials have put together a fact sheet regarding the tax district, the benefits, and most importantly why Alameda County should support it. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is set to discuss and approve the EIFD on Oct. 26. It would not be binding, however, but it would allow the process to move forward to the next round of negotiations between the team and the city.
“It is going to be incredibly important that the county votes to affirmatively state their intent to participate in financing the affordable housing and the public parks that are an integral community benefit for the total ballpark project,” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I know the commissioner is definitely looking to see that progress. Many of us are counting on that as well.”
Speaking of the commissioner–MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, specifically–he expressed doubts about whether a new ballpark will end up being built in Oakland. Speaking at the CAA World Congress of Sports in New York, Manfred said:
“Particularly in the case of Oakland, we’ve had to open up the opportunity to explore other locations, just because it’s dragged on so long,” Manfred said. “And frankly, in some ways, we’re not sure we see a path to success in terms of getting something built in Oakland.”
Asked again if relocation is a possibility, Manfred said: “Yeah, (it) is a possibility. Yeah. I mean, they’ve been talking to Las Vegas. It’s gotten a lot of publicity, but there are options in terms of relocation in addition to Las Vegas.”
Maybe, maybe not. The Nashville Stars group led by John Loar remains active and has credibility in MLB circles. For the present, Stephen Bronfman and his investors are working in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Rays on a two-market team arrangement. On the flip side, the Portland Diamond Project has been very quiet as of late. And we’re still waiting for someone to identify any potential owners in Charlotte or Raleigh; you won’t get MLB expansion in North Carolina without a deep-pocketed roster of investors, and the last solid ownership group in the Charlotte area seemingly was led by Don Beaver, a long, long time ago.
A's waterfront ballpark plan treats Oakland Chinatown like it's expendable
https://www.sfchronicle.com/.../A-s-waterfront-ballpark...
Alan Yee Alan Yee
July 15, 2021
Updated: July 15, 2021 4 a.m.
A barricaded storefront is illuminated by an incandescent light along a nearly emptied 9th Street just before sunset in the Chinatown district of Oakland on Feb. 16.
A barricaded storefront is illuminated by an incandescent light along a nearly emptied 9th Street just before sunset in the Chinatown district of Oakland on Feb. 16.
Stephen Lam/The Chronicle
https://www.sfchronicle.com/.../A-s-waterfront-ballpark...
With their world-class $1 billion ballpark and $11 billion of phased mixed-use development — consisting of nearly 1.8 million square feet of commercial development and 3,000 new residences — the A’s are promising that their new proposed waterfront Howard Terminal project will bring untold economic prosperity to all of Oakland.
And yet there’s one nearby neighborhood in Oakland that has everything to lose and little to gain from the project as it is currently proposed.
Chinatown is less than 1 mile from the stadium site, yet it was not “within scope” of the draft environmental impact report of the A’s project. As proposed, traffic from the current A’s Howard Terminal stadium plan will create congestion that will effectively block access to Chinatown during game days. The A’s are planning to build only 2,000 parking spaces for their 35,000-seat ballpark, leaving fans to comb surrounding neighborhoods for parking.
Despite a potential transit hub at Second Street, public transit remains inadequate for the proposed ballpark. The A's rely on BART, but the Lake Merritt BART Station is about 1 mile from the proposed stadium. Ride-hailing from the station to the ballpark will create further traffic nightmares. Meanwhile, the reduction of traffic lanes on Broadway for a shuttle bus would only force that traffic into Chinatown, worsening the current gridlock.
Altogether, ballpark congestion and competition for parking could significantly discourage visitors to Chinatown, deny opportunities to businesses struggling to recover from pandemic losses and bring about the collapse of a vibrant neighborhood.
Put bluntly, Chinatown is being treated as if it is expendable.
If Oakland wants to preserve any semblance of its reputation as a leader in racial equity, it needs to make Chinatown a serious partner to its ballpark discussions.
Chinatown is a valuable cultural, historical and economic asset to the region. Established in the 1870s, it is a dynamic community shaped by the needs of Asian Americans and Asian immigrants. It is an immersive experience where otherwise marginalized people make their homes — and it enables a sharing of cultures that supports understanding and cooperation among Asian and non-Asian communities.
Although Chinatown is one of Oakland’s largest generators of tax revenues, it was hit hard by the COVID pandemic. The Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce found that in 2020, 60% of Chinatown’s businesses earned half or less of what they earned in 2019, while 25% of businesses lost 75% or more of their revenue. At least 10 stores have permanently shuttered.
For Chinatown to recover, it must be accessible to visitors. But traffic congestion on game days would make it even more difficult for the shops, restaurants, family associations, cultural resources and services that make Chinatown a rewarding destination to thrive.
We’ve seen this story play out before. Washington, D.C.'s Chinatown shrank from 3,000 to 300 residents after Capitol One Arena opened in 1997.
It doesn’t have to be this way; Chinatown can thrive alongside a new ballpark at Howard Terminal. But we need ideas to minimize interference with Chinatown — as opposed to simply maximizing Howard Terminal revenue.
Traffic impacts should should be based on studies that consider the project’s impact on Chinatown.
On event days, traffic directors could reduce intersection delays, improve flow to specific destinations and speed up the parking process. Expansion of the free downtown shuttle should include the Lake Merritt BART Station. Meanwhile, building out of parking under Interstate 880 could benefit both Chinatown and the ballpark.
Because the draft environmental impact report has identified certain traffic impacts as “unavoidable,” the stadium should support affected communities by providing opportunities to local businesses. It should allow stadium-goers to bring food inside the park and offer retail concessions and advertising at the stadium for free or substantially discounted rates to businesses in Chinatown and other nearby communities.
Oakland’s Chinatown is a key component to the diversity that makes the Bay Area unique. And yet the city and A’s have failed to address Chinatown’s concerns in a meaningful way, allowing the Howard Terminal project to potentially cripple Chinatown.
That is unacceptable. Chinatown must be allowed to thrive.
Alan Yee is an Oakland native who has practiced law in downtown Oakland for over 40 years. He was a commissioner and president of the Board of the Port of Oakland and previously president of the Peralta Community Colleges Board.
A’s Howard Terminal proposal: Who pays for what, exactly?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/.../as-howard-terminal.../...
By ANNIE SCIACCA | asciacca [at] bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: May 22, 2021 at 6:31 a.m. | UPDATED: May 23, 2021 at 6:31 a.m.
The Oakland A’s want to build a splashy 35,000-seat waterfront ballpark in the next few years and ditch the aging Oakland Coliseum football/baseball stadium that’s been their home since relocating from Kansas City in 1968. They say they can do it at no cost to the taxpayers. But can they really?
Based on a review of the team’s financial proposal and preliminary work from the city’s financial consultants, the answer is: Not exactly.
The A’s proposal is a complicated scheme that commits the team to spending about $1 billion for the ballpark, and envisions another $11 billion in project costs. That includes private investment — much of it from the team — to build housing, hotel rooms, commercial and retail space, but also nearly $1 billion in city tax money to prepare the waterfront site and provide access to an impressive but difficult location at Howard Terminal.
The A’s are arguing, in essence, that their project will spark economic development that creates those taxes, so the city is giving up nothing. But the team’s proposal assumes that Howard Terminal and the surrounding area would produce little in the way of tax growth without the A’s — and that it will produce enough to pay the full cost of needed improvements with them and their ballpark in place.
Though Oakland city officials have been regularly meeting with the A’s for months over the ambitious plan, they have not yet publicly said whether they consider the team’s financial projections to be realistic or whether the proposed deal would be good or bad for the city. Other than offering a general statement reiterating the city’s support of a waterfront ballpark, Mayor Libby Schaaf also has been mum about the details.
Here’s a look at what is known about the proposal so far, and what its advantages and pitfalls may be.
What are the A’s paying for?
The term sheet clearly commits the A’s to paying to build the ballpark. “The Oakland A’s will privately fund an architecturally significant, LEED Gold, state of the art ballpark of more than $1 billion,” states the term sheet the team released on April 23. Team President Dave Kaval reaffirmed that commitment in an interview last week.
What about the costs for the rest of the project?
Kaval says the team will cover the upfront costs of most of the needed infrastructure. But it expects to be repaid over time from taxes on properties within two “infrastructure financing districts” the city will create.
One of those districts would finance the infrastructure work required to prepare the “onsite” Howard Terminal ballpark/mixed-use development. The other, larger district will pay for “offsite” infrastructure work required to get baseball fans to and from the ballpark. The A’s say that district is justified because the improvements it funds would also benefit nearby Jack London Square, West Oakland and downtown.
How do these districts generate money to pay for all this infrastructure?
Infrastructure financing districts siphon property tax growth that otherwise would go toward local government services, and use them to pay for roads, site cleanup, and other infrastructure projects. They function like the old city redevelopment agencies that diverted property taxes to pay for revitalization projects; much of downtown San Jose was built this way.
For example, if a property is assessed at $500,000 at the time a financing district is formed, any increase in its value in subsequent years would be taxed to pay for the infrastructure work. If the property’s value rises to $1 million years later, taxes levied against the $500,000 in new value could be spent on infrastructure work — and even other needed projects, like affordable housing.
A 2019 state law authored by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, makes it easier for the Oakland City Council to create these districts and issue bonds to pay for the waterfront project.
Kaval insists the city isn’t subsidizing the A’s development through these districts. Instead, he says, the districts pay for infrastructure work that would also benefit Oakland. And if it wasn’t for the ballpark, he argues, the city wouldn’t get any tax revenue from the Howard Terminal site because the tax revenue the city currently gets from there is minimal. That, of course, assumes that nothing else would happen to the land if the A’s don’t build a ballpark there.
What has to be done to fix up the ballpark site, and how much will that cost?
The A’s put a price tag for “Howard Terminal site infrastructure” at $495 million. That’s for improvements including “public parks, protection against sea level rise, and environmental remediation.”
The work would include environmental cleanup — soil under the proposed ballpark/development site is contaminated with toxic substances — seismic improvements, utility infrastructure, and sidewalks and streets.
Where does that money come from? The term sheet predicts the district would generate $860 million in revenues from new taxes, paid for by hotels, offices, and commercial development surrounding the ballpark. Besides the $495 million for infrastructure, the A’s say the balance of $365 million could go toward affordable housing and into the city’s general fund.
The term sheet doesn’t say when that money would be collected or how much annually. Skinner’s bill would give the city up to 45 years to repay the team for the infrastructure work
A city consultant’s analysis largely supports the A’s prediction for tax growth in the ballpark area, indicating Oakland would get about $43 million in annual property taxes once the development is finished, although that sum would be reduced to $25.4 million a year because almost half the amount would be spent repaying the A’s.
Who pays to spruce up the surrounding area?
This is, perhaps, the more controversial part. Because throngs of fans would have to cross heavy railroad tracks to reach the ballpark, much work needs to be done in the Jack London Square area around the site, and beyond: Overpasses or underground tunnels would have to be built, bicycle lanes added, sidewalks constructed, fences erected and intersections improved.
The A’s estimate the offsite infrastructure work would cost $360 million and expect it to be paid from the creation of a 1½-mile-long Jack London Infrastructure Financing District that stretches from Mandela Parkway to Oak Street. The term sheet says the estimated tax revenue from that tax district would generate $1.4 billion, more than enough to cover the infrastructure work.
But given the size of this financing district and how far it stretches from the ballpark, it’s harder to argue that the A’s are creating all of the tax growth there. How much should they really get credit for? The city has not released its own analysis of this part of the proposal, and the A’s term sheet doesn’t break down how that figure was calculated or when the money would start being collected.
What other benefits does Oakland get?
The term sheet states the city will reap $450 million worth of community benefits from the tax districts. Asked for details, Kaval cited the union labor hired to develop the property and environmental cleanup of an area that’s been contaminated over the years, in addition to the infrastructure and housing projects.
What’s next?
The A’s want the City Council to vote on the proposed term sheet in July, and the City Council is tentatively scheduled to review it on July 20. City officials are still negotiating with the A’s and intend to present their analysis of the proposed terms to present to the council by then.