Activism

OP-ED: Just Say No to the A’s at Howard Terminal

The voters said they wanted the right to weigh in on whether to spend public funds on the Howard Terminal project. The Council refused to place a measure on the ballot, saying no public funds would be spent and they preferred a financial review before such a vote could be scheduled. But the City never did the financial review.

Published

4 years ago

September 28, 2022

Oakland Post

Paul Cobb, Publisher, Post News Group

By Paul Cobb

What an absolute mess! The City of Oakland promotes a baseball stadium and luxury real estate development at Howard Terminal for the Oakland A’s, but it has not completed a financial analysis of risk and benefits associated with the project. It does not know what the project will cost, how it will be paid for, how many public dollars will be spent, and how much the City is at risk for anticipated cost overruns that are likely because of changing economic conditions due to inflation.

This situation is worse than the Raiders debacle at the Oakland Coliseum. You would think that once burned, the City would make sure that would not happen again.

But here we are.

Public funds from the city, county, state, and federal government will exceed $1 billion. Worse, because of changing economic conditions, the City now admits for the first time that anticipated cost overruns could pose a risk to the city of Oakland. The City Administrator won’t say how much is at stake, because he doesn’t want to “throw numbers around.” But a source close to the A’s said some estimates have pegged the cost to the city to be more than $300 million.

Before we go further, let’s be reminded how we got here. Last spring, the voters of Oakland asked the City Council to place an advisory vote on the November ballot on whether any public funds should be spent on billionaire John Fisher’s baseball and luxury real-estate deal at Howard Terminal. That request was denied.

On April 28, 2022, Councilmember Noel Gallo convinced the City Council to unanimously vote to have an independent analysis done on the risks and benefits of the project. The analysis was scheduled to be presented to the public on Sept. 20. When the date came around for the report, the City had not done the analysis even though five months had passed since it was approved.

On Sept. 20, after the meeting started, staff sent out an e-mail with an attached 18-page report that was chock full of new data and a dire warning that “significant increases in costs are anticipated and there are not yet sufficient funds currently in-hand to cover the estimated costs of the off-site infrastructure (on the project). As a result, under the current structure, there is a risk that the City would be required to fund the remaining costs as well as any cost overruns, each of which may prove significant.”

Councilmembers were stunned. They had been assured that the City would have no risks, but the report included an admission that the City could be at risk and the amounts may prove significant. Councilmember Carroll Fife asked how much was at stake. The City Administrator refused to give an estimate.

So, again, here we are.

This process has been a disaster. Promises made have been reneged on. Assurances that no public funds would be used, and that the City would not have risks turned out to be false. Oakland voters demanded the right to be heard on whether public finds should be spent, but they were turned down.

This is the same kind of incompetence and lack of transparency displayed during the Raiders deal. But the amounts at risk on this deal make the money spent on the Raiders look like chump change.

The Oakland City Council needs to put this on pause and figure out all the details before anything moves forward. Now, more than ever, City Council must insist on an independent financial analysis on the costs and risks of the project. Since public funds are clearly being spent, and the administration now admits Oakland has financial risks, City Council needs to revisit the question of letting the voters weigh in. As Councilmember Dan Kalb said previously, if that requires a special election, so be it.

Is the Council woke yet? They have been bullied, misled, and disrespected in this entire process. Transparency be damned! Will they finally say “enough,” or will they continue to move forward with their eyes wide shut?

It is time to Just Say No!