here we go again...
if folks in no. cal. can't figure out why the rest of the country isn't in luv with them, here's a prime example - the state of insanity.
fiddling around a mallpark while rome (s.j.) burns.
oh, those poor a's (as in daze), diddling around for all these years and they have nothing to show for it - surprised?
contraction looks like the best way out of this protracted mess.

here we go again...
if folks in no. cal. can't figure out why the rest of the country isn't in luv with them, here's a prime example - the state of insanity.
fiddling around a mallpark while rome (s.j.) burns.
oh, those poor a's (as in daze), diddling around for all these years and they have nothing to show for it - surprised?
contraction looks like the best way out of this protracted mess.

Paul, only problem with your theory, the A's are profitable right now. So are the Rays and every other MLB team. Why would MLB fold them when they can move them?

where?? all mlb sized markets are sewn up.
vegas isn't gonna happen either.

San Jose's the divorcing hubby, squirreling away the community (!) assets so wifey's attorney can't locate 'em.

Their RDA's a madhouse: They're using $75 million in tax increment to buy land for the A's ballpark at the same time they're in arrears to the County for $63 million?

Sounds about right for these guys.

(Rationalizing that $75 million giveaway by exploiting Diridon, BART, HSR, and blah-blah-blah? Don't even start - it's a load of horse apples.)

As for performance, the Forbes team valuations show the A's as 28th and 29th out of 30 teams in revenue and total team value, respectively.

Even if those guys were really raking it in: It wouldn't benefit San Jose, its agencies or its schools. Virtually all of that goes into the pockets of Wolff and Fisher, and Lew Woolf will make damned sure of that.

Clue to future dealings on the A's: San Jose's been handing up one giveaway after another to Lew Woolf on the EQ soccer park. They're sure not going to tick the guy off on the ballpark, as Neil correctly points out.

Look for huge concessions - again - even after Governor Brown manages to burn that RDA house down.

I don't believe in contraction, though - As usual, the same hypocrites want the same 'other guys' to fold up.

But none of that makes MLB a good bet for San Jose.

Regards,
Bill Bailey
SantaClaraPlaysFairorg

-=0=-

The other entity that *should* be suing the San Jose RDA is the City of San Jose as they are also owed money big time: 80 million (even more than the County of Santa Clara). This money was borrowed from e.g. the Parks fund (www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/FY1011/03ProposedOperating/03.SummaryInfo03.pdf)

Oh wait: the same people are the RDA board members as they are Councilmembers ...

Also, again: we always heard that RDA moneys are *special* dollars that "cannot be used" for schools, parks, libraries, but now are finding out that they are used for salaries of Councilmembers and Mayor, as well as police etc.

I pay taxes and I do not want them used as a hand out for billionaire ballpark owners. We live in a democracy and we should be able to vote *before* all this is already set in stone. All the cities, Oakland, Santa Clara, San Jose, are squirreling away their RDA funds into stadium authorities. That's just plain wrong !

Vote no, join bettersensesanjose.org

"Clue to future dealings on the A's: San Jose's been handing up one giveaway after another to Lew Wolff on the EQ soccer park. "

Bill, that is patently untrue and I suspect you know it. There have been no giveaways on the Earthquakes stadium. Wolff's group is currently paying full market value for the site and have asked for no tax breaks or anything of the like regarding the stadium or any other aspect of it. It doesn't get more above board and privately financed than that soccer stadium.

@Dan (3/10 1:18): we can of course play Bill Clinton and parse the words "currently" and "full market value": the fact of the matter is that the City Council agreed to renegotiate the already agreed upon price for the land of the soccer stadium with Wolff in a falling market.
I would love to do the same for my house ...

Well unlike your house Wolff had not agreed to purchase yet with the previously higher prices. He'd only purchased an option to buy at those prices at that time. Still only has an option actually. He's yet to actually complete the entire purchase. But fact is he's agreeing to pay what the land is worth today. You really can't object to that unless you actually suggest he should pay above market value for land no one had previously shown any interest in.

Sorry, Dan, you lose.

"The new terms, which could save Wolff and prominent valley builders Deke Hunter and Ed Storm up to $4 million in purchase costs, would mark the second time the city has lowered its price to keep the already-negotiated project afloat since the real estate crisis plunged the country into economic quicksand. It also allows them to delay purchasing the land until 2015, two years later than the current deadline."

---Merc, 12/12/2010

Regards,
Bill Bailey
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

Strike two, there, Dan:

This blog, search EQ, April 8, 2009, "San Jose cuts Quakes land price"

"In what the San Jose Mercury News calls an effort to "speed along a San Jose Earthquakes soccer stadium threatened by the cratering economy � now that doesn't sound promising � the city of San Jose has agreed to cut their asking price for the proposed stadium site from $132 million to $89 million. There are two ways to look at this, of course: as the city offering the Quakes a gift of $43 million, or as a reflection of the fact that California land isn't worth the paper it's printed on right now. City councilmember Sam Liccardo, whose district includes the stadium site, took the latter view: "Prices have come back to earth, and we have to face that reality. Doing something beats doing nothing in this economy."

...Except when doing something leaves you worse off than doing nothing, which is what San Jose's sports venue misadventures are doing.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
SantaClaraPlaysFair.org

-=0=-

"...Still only has an option actually. He's yet to actually complete the entire purchase..."

'Hoist with his own petar' - Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4. Love it when they do that.

The continued delays at any fixed price only assures that San Jose will collect even *less* in real dollars further and further down the road.

Add to that the price REDUCTION Wolff has already been given - and the returns to San Jose are even less.

Wait till San Jose's leaders start *really* giving away the store on the A's stadium, and your city's going to be in real trouble.

Oh. That's right. They already are.

Three and you're outta there, Dan.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

Sorry Bill, your logic and cynicism don't track. You admit Wolff only has an option to buy, an option the city sold him on land they have no desire to own. You also dismiss the reality that the market had been in collapse because it doesn't fit your world view. Even though the parties involved and anyone appraising the land will tell you otherwise on the value, you're choosing to ignore that this is the current value of this land.

And you claim San Jose would be better off if they did nothing. Ok, how? Right now they're losing over 7 million dollars annually on the Airport West property. Since they've purchased it they've blown something along the lines of 50 50 million dollars+ on tax service to the land. Wolff would be saving them from that and turning the property from a blighted piece of contaminated land into a vibrant commercial, R&D and entertainment area, again on land that no one else wanted or wants and the city bought at inflated value, but of course you choose to ignore that. Seems to me you're just acting as a spin machine to try and fit this to your world view. Just because Santa Clara bent over and took it from the Niners doesn't mean the city of SJ is from the Quakes. The A's may be a different, but separate matter.

Thanks for playing, that last pitch was a home run by the way. BOOM!

Dan, you're still wrong.

==========================
The City of San Jose DID cave in to Lew Wolff on the soccer park. Twice. I proved it.
==========================

There is NO return from a baseball stadium to the city of San Jose, and you've even admitted that much by acknowledging that the RDA is blowing $75M to buy up land for it. That accrues to the benefit of the A's owners - not to San or to any of its agencies.

The fact that this buyup is being done by an agency that had a legal obligation to remit to the County of Santa Clara, and that it is now violating the law in order to fund the ballpark infrastructure, completely torpedoes your case.

Oddly, you then you shoot yourself in the foot again by even bringing up the airport parcel - they're losing the same money on that that they are by caving in to Lew Wolff at every turn on the soccer park.

The A's are a separate matter. And I've been treating them that way from the jump. Try not to invent stuff that isn't there.

As for the claims of some "R&D" component in the misguided sqaundering of public money for your baseball park, I'll believe that when I see it - when you're all done, you're really only going to see low-wage "entertainment" jobs - not high-paying tech jobs.

That's why paying for Lew Wolff's infrastructure is a lousy deal for San Jose.

Sorry, Dan, you whiffed. It's "no sale."

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

My turn !

apart from lost property tax revenue, the City is already paying the mortgage interest on M$100 since 2005 !! That is quite the subsidy of public dollars to the next owner:
"In 2005, San Jose paid $81 million for the FMC property. Including cleanup costs, the city's cost for the site totaled $100 million."

recap, there are not ONE but TWO renegotiations where the City got the short end of the stick:
(1) In May 2008, the city reached a "deal with Wolff" and his partners giving them an option to buy the land for $132 million
(2) the city in May 2009 agreed to renegotiate: Wolff's group would pay $89 million
(3) Under the last agreement (12/12/10), the purchase price would remain $89 million for the 65 acres, and the developers would still be credited for $5 million in option payments already made. But their option to buy the land would be extended two more years through June 2015 and would cost $2 million less over that time. If they buy the soccer site by June 2012, the first $2 million in new option payments would apply toward the purchase price.

Afriend called it: "The government giving away our money to the filthy rich. Now this is what I call socialism."

Why would we the people trust the same Council to negotiate a deal for a baseball stadium ?? We will get fleeced and they still will call it "privately financed"

"The City of San Jose DID cave in to Lew Wolff on the soccer park. Twice. I proved it."

No, all you proved is twice the previously negotiated price related to the consecutive options ended up being above being above market price both times. Like any good purchaser Wolff wasn't willing to pay what ended up being 50 million above market price for a piece of blighted contaminated land. I suppose you'd have rather he bought the land at far more than it's actually worth?

As for the mortgage interest and cleanup costs, the city bought it in 2005 expecting they'd need it. Turns out they made a bad investment. Don't blame the next guy who came along to buy it just because the city didn't plan properly for the future. If you have a problem with it, you should really be directing your ire at the 2005 San Jose city council, not Wolff. Wolff is just doing what any smart buyer in the same situation, yourselves included, would do.

Sorry, Dan, but you're weaseling out. Your specific claim was the the city never gave in on the soccer park terms.

======================
You were wrong. Fact.
======================

Your claim that your city actually maneuvered Lew Wolff - one of the brightest lights in his biz - to pay above-market price for a property you yourself admitted was polluted to death is totally ludicrous. Don't even try that.

None of that has *anything* to do with the steadily decaying returns from a soccer park - or a baseball park - to the City of San Jose.

The rest of your reply is completely irrelevant to the topic here.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

When you approach the issue of the baseball park - or the soccer park with the level of emotional

Bill, your claim that city "caved" in is the only claim I'm seeing that is ludicrous. They modified their deal to the realities of the current market. Nothing more. Did they do it to keep the deal afloat, yes. Is that caving, no. Caving would have been offering Wolff money to help build the stadium or letting him build on the land for free. What they actually did was engage in a sensible business transaction nothing more. You're tilting at a windmill here, when the real boogie man is coming down the peninsula to your very own city, not San Jose.

Bill:

You might have to explain how an option to purchase actually works... you know, specific price on a specific date and all that...

If Wolff didn't want to buy at that price on the appointed date (or dates, to be more accurate), he is free to leave the option unfilled. And surrender the option price.

An "option" that includes both a specified price or FMV is no option at all, real estate or otherwise.

You got caught in a major misstatement of fact, Dan, and you're squirming like crazy. Your fault. Not mine.

You then compounded your own error with your inane claim that Lew Wolff got snookered into paying over-market for the soccer park site - which *he's* paying to clean up!

If you're this desperate over a soccer park the most basic details of which you do not even understand: What's that say about your highly defective proposal for a subsidized baseball park that will only put money in Lew Wolff's pocket?

I know about the ripoff in Santa Clara.

You obviously have no conception of the one in San Jose.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

Diridon:

Agreed. If they keep negotiating with Wolff, it won't be long before they are paying him (maybe in future tax credits, since they don't seem to have enough money to pay their bills...) to take the land.

I wonder how much they would be willing to pay him for the option to take the land off their hands at no cost? The mind boggles...

John Bladen: You're right - but that doesn't change Dan's material misstatement of fact, or the ultimate loss to the City of San Jose when Lew Wolff pays dollars that are worth far less in net present value down the road.

My point remains that same: That San Jose caved twice, both times on Lew Wolff's option to purchase that site, and that they are capitulating on the soccer park terms to avoid ticking him off on the baseball park. San Jose, like it or not, ends up losing because of Bud Selig's prevarication as well as because of the dreadful market we're in right now.

$5M of the $6M in the upfront option payment for the soccer park land, in fact, Mr. Wolff is entitled to apply to the final final purchase price of the FMC plot. Furthermore, that plot's already been reduced in price. See the Merc, "San Jose considers break for soccer stadium developers," Dec. 12th, 2010.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

How'd you miss this one, Neil?

www.sacbee.com/2011/03/10/3463790/santa-clara-acts-to-protect-49ers.html

Maybe Neil didn't miss it - it was published today.

Besides, this thread celebrates the goofy decisions being made by the City of San Jose on the baseball park - not the really reckless and stupid ones being made the City of Santa Clara on the $444M 49ers' subsidy.

Rgds,
Bill Bailey, Treasurer,
Santa Clara Plays Fair dot Org

-=0=-

Yeah, I saw it last night, just didn't get to it yet. Still not clear on whether what these cities are doing is legal - it's going to be an interesting court battle. Which isn't going to get stadiums built any quicker, regardless of the eventual ruling.