City Government

A’s Dave Kaval Responds to Community Concerns Over New Stadium

Published

6 years ago

October 17, 2019

Since the Oakland Athletic’s first mentioned their intent to build a new home stadium in 2014, the project has spurred a multitude of reactions from city officials, industry workers, and the general public.

In early 2019 the A’s announced their plans to purchase and develop two large pieces of public land in Oakland: the Coliseum, and Howard Terminal at the Port of Oakland. Preliminary digital renderings presented a 34,000 seat waterfront stadium, flanked by a hotel and 3,000 condominiums — all accessible via a multi-million dollar gondola.

The new ballpark is estimated to generate $3 billion in benefits in the first 10 years, and over 6,000 permanent jobs, according to the Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Still, some residents and community members have remained skeptical that the development is a land-grab that will not benefit residents.

Oakland United Coalition — which was created in direct response to talks of the A’s plans to redevelop the coliseum in 2014 — has been at the forefront of the skepticism facing the development. The coalition has demanded a community benefits agreement — a legally binding agreement that would commit the A’s to fulfill community needs.

A’s President Dave Kaval said the A’s have long “committed” to a community benefits agreement — but that the contract is largely in the hands of the City of Oakland.

“These are the two biggest public land swaths in the city of Oakland, so it makes sense that folks are concerned,” said Jahmese Meyers, deputy director of the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy — part of Oakland United. “For Oakland United, ultimately, no matter where the stadium locates, whether it stays at the Coliseum or at Howard Terminal, it’s public land — it needs to be for public good.”

Kaval said that the A’s are glad that there has been so much community involvement in the project, and want to ensure that all parties benefit from whatever agreement is reached.

“Were going to do every thing we can to create a plan that allows for existence between all the key stakeholder groups and the new ballpark project,” said Kaval.

Some of the loudest opposition to the Howard Terminal ballpark has come from industry workers who rely on the prosperity of the Port of Oakland. The International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU) Local 10 held a public meeting on Sept. 21 in staunch opposition to the Howard Terminal Development.

“This is not about baseball, this is about gobbling up land, this is a real estate investment,” said Derrick Muhammad, former secretary treasurer at the ILWU Local 10.

Port workers pointed to the fact that the A’s waterfront ballpark would sit on a site three times smaller than the Coliseum, and require extensive infrastructure, transportation amendments and removal of decades of toxic waste. Some also worry that placing a large residential development in a highly polluted industrial area could threaten business operations.

“I think it’s also important to note that there are 24,000 people who live currently within a mile of Howard Terminal, so there is already a fair amount of residential in that area,” said Kaval, adding that the A’s have committed to a “robust transportation plan” to ensure that port operations are not impeded.

The A’s have also agreed to the port’s conditions, which include the widening of the turning basin for cargo ships, and a “buffer zone” between residential developments and industry.

Residents also worry about parking, as the new stadium will have significantly smaller lot compared to the Coliseum. Workers are concerned that the trucks currently parked at Howard Terminal will be forced into West Oakland streets, and that the city will be unable to control thousands of baseball fans descending on the stadium for a game.

“It’s incredibly important that traffic is not pushed into the neighborhoods,” said Kaval, who also pointed to the 14,000 parking spots in the nearby downtown area. “The one nice thing about having a stadium in a commercial area is you can leverage the parking that people use in the day for business — which at night is largely empty. So it’s a kind of symbiotic use.”

The A’s have also incurred criticism for their claim that the projects will be “100 percent privately funded.” A recently approved California Bill, SB 293, could facilitate the creation of new tax districts to fund infrastructure for the ballpark. The bill specifically cites Howard Terminal as site that could benefit from an infrastructure financing district.

In response, Kaval argued that SB 293 is not restricted to the ballpark project, and could be used as a “positive tool” for anything infrastructure-related in Oakland.

“I think it’s important to note that the bill only gives the ability of the city council to implement the infrastructure district…and no decisions have been made on that. That’s something that the city council is going to have to vote on,” said Kaval.

When it comes to the sale of the Coliseum, the City of Oakland made it’s position clear on Sept. 29 when it filed a lawsuit against Alameda County to block the sale of the county’s portion of the 150-acre lot, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Mayor Libby Schaaf, who has been a supporter of the project since day one, expressed dismay to the Chronicle after the city’s move. Following the suit, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred urged the city to drop the lawsuit, or risk the team relocating to another city.

Despite the setback, the A’s plan to finalize permits by mid 2020, and project to break ground by 2021.

Saskia Hatvany

Posts by Saskia Hatvany

Up Next

Mothers of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner Join NNPA, Others in Opposing NYC Menthol Ban

Don't Miss

Evicted Unhoused Residents Wonder ‘Where Do We Go?’

Saskia Hatvany

2 Comments

Activism

Life Expectancy in Marin City, a Black Community, Is 15-17 Years Less than the Rest of Marin County

“Marin City residents have been fighting for years just to stay here. Residents live with the fear of being forced out, public housing torn down and rebuilt for the wealthy. Due to ongoing issues continually being ignored, residents feel they must be empowered to make their own decisions for the future survival and protection of their community,” said Terrie Green, a lifelong resident and executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience (MCCR).

Published

3 days ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

Marin City community leaders (l.-r.): Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience (MCCR); Wambua Musyoki, Stanford University; Khamil Callahan, Santa Rosa Junior College; Serenity Allen, Xavier University; and Chinaka Green, MCCR associate director.

By Ken Epstein

People may be aware of the existence of Marin City and know a little about its history as a center of U.S. resistance to fascism in the World War II. But fewer know of the community’s ongoing struggles to survive potential displacement while facing severe toxic health and environmental conditions on a daily basis.

These conditions cause chronic disease and premature death, dramatically shown in the sharp difference in life expectancy between Black and white people living in households only a few miles apart.

A historically African American enclave, Marin City, occupies a 0.5-square mile area between Mill Valley and Sausalito with its own freeway exit near the Golden Gate Bridge. In contrast, the rest of Marin County rates among the healthiest, wealthiest, and most environmentally friendly counties in the country. However, it is one of the least racially equitable counties in California, with Black residents being the most impacted, according to the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization,.

The community owes its continued existence to the World War II generation that came to the Bay Area from the South to work in the shipyards and to the resiliency of its residents. Despite often facing discriminatory practices, such as redlining and a segregated school district, Marin City residents have continually created a strong community rich in culture, spirituality, and community values.

The current statistics are brutal. At present, Marin City residents face more than a 17-year difference in life expectancy compared to neighboring cities and towns. Contributing to these conditions are a lack of investment in public housing and infrastructure: unsafe drinking water, air pollution caused by proximity to the U.S. 101 freeway, unsanitary stormwater drainage that produces mold and mildew, as well as old and broken lead pipes and sewage in homes.

As an unincorporated community, Marin City residents must rely primarily on the elected Marin County Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Works, Transportation Authority of Marin and Caltrans for the decisions and investments that impact their lives.

MCCR’s focus is on environmental justice. Its purpose is to empower and advocate for individuals to embrace sustainable living, envision a future free of environmental harm and collectively work towards a better Marin City. MCCR’s motto is “Forever Marin City.”

MCCR has created a unique team of Marin City Youth Environmentalists who have studied and researched environmental issues impacting the health of the community.

Serenity Allen is an MCCR Youth Coordinator/Young Environmentalist studying to be a medical social worker at Xavier University. She has been working in the community for six years. “I strongly believe that where you live should not determine how long you are able to live,” she said.

Allen referred to the work done by former Marin County Public Health Officer Dr. Matt Willis, who stated that Marin City has a 17-year life expectancy difference between residents of Marin City (77 years) and more affluent areas like Ross (94 years).

“The research shows this gap is heavily correlated with race and socioeconomic status. Sausalito, which is not even two miles outside of Marin City, has a life expectancy of 92 years,” Allen said.

“Many elements contribute to this gap,” she said. “A major factor may be the 12 acres of toxic flood waters that pour down off the highway into low-lying Marin City.

In addition, “We do not have a barrier wall protecting us along our highway; the rest of Marin County has 16 barrier walls to protect from noise and air pollution. Marin City has been fighting for a barrier wall since 2008,” she said.

Octavien Green, an MCCR high school environmentalist, spoke about the impact of the absence of recreational facilities on health and wellness, particularly for youth.

“Lack of investment in our recreational facilities means we have fewer spaces and opportunities for physical activity, which contribute to serious health problems like heart disease, diabetes, weak bones and low energy, especially for kids. We are presently involved in an ongoing struggle just to rebuild a sports ball field for the community that’s been unusable for the last 15 years.”

“Marin City is the center of Black culture for all of Marin County,” said Green. “Historically, though, the county has not invested in the community, and you see it in the life expectancy, the highest chronic disease and disability rates and eight times the amount of asthma. In the last six weeks, we’ve had three young people in their 40s and 50s die from heart attacks. This is alarming and must be addressed.”

Looking toward next steps, she said, “The way forward is through incorporation,” which would mean that Marin City would have its own elected leadership to find solutions that determine the future of the community.

This is the first in a series of articles on Marin City, examining conditions in the community and interviewing both community members and public officials.