Summer observations
How the A's return to Oakland; How Oakland is heading toward insolvency; How San Leandro residents don't like their elected leaders; And how Alameda's progressive council majority is doomed
The notion put out this week by Scott Ostler in the San Francisco Chronicle that big dollar groups are interested in purchasing the A’s and keeping them in Oakland are being told to not publicly express said interest is not surprising.
Back in 2013, I reported that Warriors owner Joe Lacob was interested in buying the A’s and building both a ballpark and arena at Howard Terminal (the property is that large). The sentiment expressed by Lacob was that MLB owners greatly frowned upon prospective buyers publicly coveting a franchise.
I don’t believe the A’s will be gone from Oakland for very long. Perhaps, the run-up to the San Jose Sharks’ birth could be illustrative.
In the early 90s, the Minnesota North Stars of the National Hockey League were failing. In order to keep hockey in Minnesota, its owners were awarded rights to a Northern California expansion team, and a new owner was found for the North Stars.
The example has downsides. Minnesota’s new owner eventually relocated the team to Dallas. The other downside today is that hockey owners seem to respect the game more the baseball owners respect their own.
If the A’s stay, however, the next owner will have a lot of work to do. The fan base is exhausted and mostly done with the team.
Personally, I haven’t watched a game this season. I’ve moved on, watching more soccer than ever before. Yesterday, I was sporting my new Kevin DeBruyne Manchester City jersey. Some guy at a coffee shop asked if I was Belgian.
DEAL OR NO DEAL?
I have long been raising questions about the African American Sports & Entertainment Group (AASEG) and its bid to purchase Oakland’s half of the Coliseum. I don’t believe they’re legit. I don’t believe they have the money, which is absolutely frightening for Oakland, which needs the proceeds from the sale to potentially avert insolvency.
Furthermore, AASEG could be looking for a way out of the deal, according to some whispers I’ve been hearing recently involving remediation of toxic soils at the Coliseum. The potential exorbitant costs of cleaning up the soil could make the proposed deal not pencil out for AASEG. On the flip side, it’s a better exit from the deal than admitting they couldn’t come up with the money to buy out Oakland’s half of the complex.
SAN LEANDRO RESIDENTS ARE NOT HAPPY
There’s a sense in Alameda and San Leandro that Oakland’s problems with public safety is bleeding over to their cities. But if any of Oakland’s issues are impacting its neighbors, it’s not public safety, but the absurdity at Oakland City Council that seems to be replicating itself in San Leandro and Oakland.
Collectively, San Leandro councilmembers are not even showing up for meetings. Coucnilmember Fred Simon has been absent from three consecutive meetings. A fourth absence could amount to dereliction of his duties. Over the past three months, it’s commonplace to see one or two empty seats on the dais.
When some councilmembers show up, their ideas run the gamut from equestrian centers, legalizing psychedelic mushrooms, padlocks on dumpsters, controlling feral cats, and designing friendly-looking police uniforms.
San Leandro residents have long been apathetic toward politics in their city, but that may be changing soon. A tracking poll released this week showed a precipitous drop in the public’s view of their city government and elected officials in just the last six months.
The tracking poll was used to gauge public support of two proposed revenue-generating ballot measures last December and more recently in June.
CITY’S MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Favorable 67% in Dec. 2023/56% in June 2024
Unfavorable 19% in Dec. 2023/31% in June 2024
PROVISION OF CITY SERVICES
Favorable 52/41
Unfavorable 30/41
CITY’S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Better 29/14
The same 38/40
Worse 24/39
Voter discontent in San Leandro led the city council on Monday to abandon two revenue-generating ballot measures proposed for the November ballot.
END OF ALAMEDA’S PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY IS NEAR
Things aren’t so hot in Alameda, either. Alameda Councilmember Trish Herrera Spencer acts like she’s still the mayor. Most shocking is Spencer’s abuse of city staff. At times, Spencer appears to thinks she’s controversial Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, asking probing questions of Democrats and attempting to catch them in gaffes.
Alameda officials and political insiders have put up with Spencer’s antics for years because she simply cannot get anything done. Spencer has likely registered the lone no vote on agenda items more times than she’s voting with the majority. But the days of Spencer being the lone fist shaking at the sky may soon be over.
The coalition created by Jeff Del Bono of the Alameda Firefighters Union, and built upon by Rob Bonta, former Mayor Marie Gilmore, current Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Malia Vella, and former Councilmember Jim Oddie shifted the city’s moderate politics squarely to the left for most of the past 15 years.
But Alameda’s progressive coalition has struggled in recent years to replenish itself. In two years, all of the individuals mentioned above will be out of office. The current bench of candidates is essentially empty.
There’s a very real chance that if Spencer is re-elected to a second term on the council this November, she will be joined by another moderate-to-conservative council mate. Along with Councilmember Tony Daysog, Spencer’s obstructionist and populist politics will become the council majority.
Spencer has never been in a position to actually implement any of her ideas so it’s difficult to imagine what changes to Alameda’s current status quo could be on the table. One issue could be rent stabilization, which the progressive majority and a relentless group of local tenant activists fought hard to gain starting in 2016.
ELECTION 2024
NOMINATION PERIOD
—PULLING PAPERS—Candidates who pulled papers on Thursday: (Note: The Microsoft outage affected access to the state, county, and some city’s campaign finance websites on Thursday night.) *-incumbent
