A’s get a big win at BCDC
BCDC votes to remove Howard Terminal from port priority use designation; Ballot measure survey targets ballpark opponent Schnitzer Steel
ROOTED IN OAKLAND
Intersection of Sports and Politics
—BCDC—A vote, touted by A’s officials as make-or-break for the future of Major League Baseball in Oakland, came out in their favor on Thursday when the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) allowed the proposed waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal to take another big step forward.
—Twenty-five BCDC commissioners, representing coastal jurisdictions across the Bay Area, voted, 23-2, to remove Howard Terminal as a port priority use area.
—The determination gives the Oakland Athletics the ability to begin the permitting process in advance of building a 35,000-seat ballpark near Jack London Square.
—It was a day A’s fans and supporters of the ballpark project had been anxiously awaiting since a surprising adverse decision was rendered last March by a lower BCDC committee.
—Prior to the early morning hearing, A’s President Dave Kaval tweeted, “Big vote today! Like an elimination game! Let’s do this Howard Terminal or bust!” The reference to an elimination game, however, was curious because of the team’s notorious inability on the field to win such games over the past two decades. On this day, though, they came through with little opposition.
—Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia noted the commission could end the project today, but can’t issue final approval. A positive vote, Gioia said, “moves it to second base.” “What happens next is not up to us, it’s up to others,” he said, referring to the city of Oakland.
—Alameda County Supervisor Dave Brown, a member of the BCDC, in voting for removal, evoked his former boss Supervisor Wilma Chan, who tragically passed away last November. “She would see what I see,” Brown said. “There is necessary information to move forward.”
—There was some opposition. BCDC Commissioner Jim McGrath said Howard Terminal is a real estate deal and the decision is about whether the parcel is surplus or not. “I am not convinced, even at 40 acres, it is not a viable terminal,” McGrath said, referencing the possible addition of a turning basin that would shrink the size of the terminal.
—McGrath, though, waved off hyperbole long used by the project’s opponents that a ballpark would be catastrophic for the port. “The Port of Oakland is not going away,” McGrath said.
—Last March, the BCDC Seaport Planning Advisory Committee narrowly voted against recommending the removal Howard Terminal as a port priority use, but some BCDC members on Thursday noted the advisory committee made its determination without the fulsome staff report that was before the full commission today.
—A final report by BCDC staff, however, recommended removal of Howard Terminal from its port priority use area designation.
—The negative determination last March may have lit an additional fire under labor unions, which aside from the longshoremen, strongly support the Howard Terminal ballpark proposal. Thursday’s hearing in San Francisco was packed with union members, some holding signs promoting the project’s potential for job creation.
—Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who has driven much of the big push for the ballpark over the past year, urged commissioners to give her city a chance to build a transformational waterfront development. “Howard Terminal is not needed for future port growth,” Schaaf told BCDC commissioners. “I ask that you give Oakland its shot.”
—The scene now moves back to Oakland, where a proposed advisory ballot measure may be discussed by the Oakland City Council next week. In addition, A’s and city officials continue to negotiate a final development deal that could come before the city council in late September.
—BALLOT SURVEY—There’s been a lot of talk about the recent moves made by the East Oakland Stadium Alliance (EOSA), an Astroturf group funded by Oakland steel recycler Schnitzer Steel (also a potential future neighbor of the ballpark) that opposes the Howard Terminal ballpark project.
—At least five mailer opposing Howard Terminal and urging a public vote have arrived in mailboxes over the past month. Oakland Councilmembers Noel Gallo and Carroll Fife are advocating for a ballot measure in the fall, with a council vote possibly coming on July 5.
—There appears to be push back afoot to EOSA’s efforts. An online poll is making the rounds that is gauging support for a ballot measure that would force Schnitzer Steel to move its outdoor operations inside a building or risk closure after one year.
—The polls asks about the favorability of various individuals and groups, including Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, Oakland City Council, Port of Oakland, Communities for a Better Environment, SF Baykeeper, Schnitzer Steel, and the International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union.
—A proposed ballot stamens in the survey:
—Any initiative process started at this somewhat late date would have a challenging path for making it to the November ballot. All ballot measures must have the requisite number of valid signatures procured and verified by the first week of August.
—But the gambit could be just a warning shot across Schnitzer Steel’s bow. Last year, the A’s filed a lawsuit against Schnitzer Steel over it’s sketchy environmental history, and won.