OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A plan to build a $12 billion Oakland Athletics ballpark and mixed-use development on the city’s waterfront passed a key hurdle Tuesday when a county board signaled its intent to approve a crucial financial component for the project.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a nonbinding resolution signaling its intent to create a special property tax district that will generate revenue to reimburse the Oakland A’s for certain project costs that the team has refused to cover.
The resolution was passed in a 4–1 vote with board president Keith Carson refusing to lend his support. Carson said he fully supports keeping the A’s in Oakland, but he argued that taxpayer dollars should go to county residents most in need and not to a private company like the Oakland A’s.
“Our revenues are being used to try to keep our hospitals open,” Carson said. “Our monies are to make sure we feed people.”
Under threat of losing a third professional sports team after the Oakland Raiders and Golden State Warriors left the city in 2019, Oakland has been negotiating a deal for a new 35,000-seat Oakland A’s ballpark and surrounding development since April 2020.
The proposed project at the Howard Terminal site in Oakland would include 3,000 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of office space, 270,000 square feet for retail, a 3,500-seat performance center, 400 hotel rooms and more than 18 acres of open space.
Pressure has been mounting on the city to strike a deal on the ballpark proposal as the A’s explore a potential move to Las Vegas. Earlier this month, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred further flared tensions when he said, “We’re not sure we see a path to success in terms of getting something built in Oakland.”
In July, the city approved a nonbinding roadmap for negotiations on the project, but Oakland A’s president Dave Kaval said the team remains at odds with the city on key issues, including funding for infrastructure, community benefits, affordable housing and transportation improvements.
On Tuesday, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf asked the board to pass a resolution indicating its willingness to approve a special tax zone to reimburse the A’s for certain costs associated with the project. That approval is a necessary step to move the project forward, according to the city.
“Let us meet this moment to literally transform a part of our city that’s been neglected, that’s been sealed off, that’s no longer economically productive and has this incredible potential to generate economic benefit for generations to come,” Schaaf told the board during a discussion that dragged on for over six hours.
Schaaf said the project will generate $68 million in county tax revenue during the construction phase and, once completed, $16 million annually through sales and other taxes, according to an analysis by the city’s financial consultant, Century Urban.
But county supervisors, including board president Carson, questioned how those figures were arrived at since they appear to presume special taxes set to expire in 10 to 15 years will be extended by voters.
The county is being asked to contribute about $7.9 million in tax revenue each year, adding up to $354.6 million over 45 years. The money would come from a so-called enhanced infrastructure financing district. That money will be used to reimburse the Oakland A’s for affordable housing, open space and infrastructure for the project beyond what it would be required to provide as developer under city law.
During public comments, several county residents objected to spending taxpayer dollars on a private development. Others argued that the deal is necessary to keep the A’s in Oakland and to realize economic benefits and higher tax revenues that will flow from the project.
Schaaf said the project would not affect the county’s general fund because the money would come from special taxes imposed on home and business owners on the site of the proposed development.
Carson disagreed, arguing that it will essentially divert money from other pressing county needs, such as providing mental health care and social services to vulnerable residents.
“We’re being asked to take a leap of faith and give millions in future tax revenues that historically whenever they’re realized would go to health care, social services and basic needs for the safety net,” Carson said.
The project’s potential impact on the nearby Port of Oakland was also debated Tuesday. Lisa Williams of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union said putting a major development with high-end condos close to where ships unload freight to be transported by rail and truck could interfere with port operations. The port sustains more than 84,000 jobs, she said.
“You’re going to compromise our livelihoods,” Williams said. “That’s a huge concern for us.”
Schaaf assured the board that the city will adopt “port compatibility measures” to ensure the project does not interfere with seaport operations.
“We are working with a holistic and mindful view that the Port of Oakland is crucial to our success,” Schaaf said.
Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan said she has major concerns that project lacks an adequate amount of on-site affordable housing and that it could serve to further gentrify the city and push out lower-income residents. She also strongly disagreed with a provision that lets the Oakland A’s earn interest on taxpayer money that will be used to reimburse the team. But she ultimately voted in favor of the resolution because she said it is non-binding and she wants to move the project forward and help keep the A’s in Oakland.
“There will be future votes so we could step away from this agreement anytime we want to,” Chan said.
The resolution calls for the Oakland A’s to cover the county’s costs in conducting further studies on project financing and tax revenue.
The next step will come after an environmental impact report is completed and finalized project terms are presented to the Oakland City Council, Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners for approval.
Follow @NicholasIovino
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
