The A’s proposal for a new waterfront baseball stadium at Oakland’s Howard Terminal is a multi-use development site that would include shops, parks, and housing. As the City of Oakland and Alameda County negotiate with the A’s over how these benefits are paid for, much has been made about the impact that sports stadiums have on communities.
In this episode, reporter Noah Cole speaks with Dr. Richard Noll of the Stanford Economics Department and Veronica Cummings of the Oakland’s City Administrator’s Office about the economic impact of sports stadiums on cities and the equity-focused community benefits process for engaging the community in the proposal.
Additional Reading
Oakland City Council approved a Howard Terminal ballpark roadmap, but not on the terms the A’s want- https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/21/oakland-city-council-vote-athletics-howard-terminal-ballpark-term-sheet/
Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth, Stanford expert says-https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/
Oakland Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal Community Benefits- https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/community-benefits-agreement-cba-for-the-oakland-as-waterfront-ballpark-district-at-howard-terminal
Community Benefits Agreements - https://www.forworkingfamilies.org/cblc/cba
Alameda County votes Yes to help fund Oakland A’s Howard terminal ballpark project- https://www.athleticsnation.com/2021/10/27/22748993/oakland-as-howard-terminal-ballpark-alameda-county-vote-tax
Transcript
Noah: [00:00:06] Hey Amy
Amy: [00:00:14] Hey, Noah
Noah: [00:00:15] when’s the last time you went to a sports stadium?
Amy: [00:00:18] I’m not a huge sports fanatic, but I went to a Warriors game at the old stadium a few years ago and the energy was incredible. The place was bursting with Oakland Pride. How about you?
Noah: [00:00:28] Well, I went to the Coliseum in Oakland last spring, but it wasn’t for a baseball game.
Amy: [00:00:33] Oh, what were you doing there?
Noah: [00:00:34] Well, the stadium was a mass vaccination site, so I got my COVID shot there. It was my first time at the Coliseum, which used to be home to the Raiders, and now it’s where the A’s play. And I remember thinking this place is kind of weird. The stadium is in a pretty isolated spot in Oakland, surrounded by nothing but parking lots. And after that, I started noticing signs popping around the city, talking about labor groups supporting the construction of a new stadium, which got me curious about what was going on.
Amy: [00:01:02] Turns out the Oakland A’s are proposing a brand new waterfront stadium at Howard Terminal. They want to build a multi-use site that includes shopping, parks and housing. The city of Oakland and Alameda County are in the process of negotiating with the A’s, which has been a little rocky, stalling in restarting several times over the last few months.
Noah: [00:01:19] The conflict is that the A’s want the city and county to pay for certain public benefits like affordable housing, parks and tenant services around the stadium. But the city wants the A’s to pitch them for these infrastructure projects by creating a special tax zone around the stadium.
Amy: [00:01:33] Aucklanders have a real reason to be concerned about who fits the bill. The city is still paying off the bonds that finance the remodeling of the Coliseum for the Raiders return in ’95 to push the city’s hand. The A’s have been courting other cities like Vegas and Sacramento.
Noah: [00:01:47] Amy, when I initially started this story, I came in with the perspective that sports stadiums were bad for a city no matter what, because they couldn’t generate revenue. But our two guests on the podcast today, Dr. Richard Noll of the Stanford Economics Department and Veronica Cummings of the Oakland City Administrator’s Office encouraged me to think a little bit differently about the impact of the stadium. There’s a value that stadiums bring to cities that’s a little bit unrelated to economics. So how do you measure the importance of community pride, a sense of belonging or a shared team to rally around? And how do you evaluate the potential benefits that come from affordable housing? Parks and retail tied to the stadium proposal in a city that’s been deserted by the Raiders and more recently, your favorite team, the Warriors. These considerations are uniquely important to the city of Oakland
Amy: [00:02:33] and with negotiations moving fast. We may know the fate of the Howard Terminal project very soon,
Noah: [00:02:38] so let’s play ball. Today, we’re talking to Oklahomans, will they stay or will they go? So I started my conversation with doctrinal seeking to understand how this stadium proposal could be different from previous proposals. There’s greater provisions beyond the stadium itself. So I wanted to find out more
Dr. Noll: [00:03:05] that the A’s plan is consistent with what has been going on and the construction of sports facilities for the past the past 15 years, which is to end the era in which a sports facility was sort of located as an island by itself, surrounded by parking lot to a situation in which it’s integrated with a larger community. And that’s that is the big innovation in sports facilities that’s occurred in the 21st century. And the the Oakland proposal is consistent with that. And that’s to be contrasted with the forty nine ERS facility in Santa Clara, which is has some of that, but it’s mainly still an island in a parking lot. And so you can think of the 49ers facility as the last of the old style of tour facility and then the Oakland proposal as being what would be, you know, a much more modern innovation, more like the wired facility in downtown San Francisco.
Noah: [00:04:07] No way here again. This sounds pretty nice, right? And innovative stadium plan that’s connected to the community. So then what’s going on with the political opposition to the proposal with an Oakland mayoral race coming around the corner in 2022? I had to ask Dr. Noll about how the politics of the stadium proposal are panning out in this city.
Dr. Noll: [00:04:28] The relationship with the A’s and the new stadium proposal will be a major issue on the next election. Now how it cuts, I don’t know, as Oakland, Oakland is not your garden variety city. It’s a pretty unique place in the in the Bay Area. So you really can’t use the politics of San Francisco or the politics of San Jose or the politics of Santa Clara to predict Oakland. Right? But it, for sure will be a major issue, with one side being the sports fans and the people who have decided that the developer proposal is good for them and their constituency and the other side being those who don’t feel it’s a good deal because they’re the people they care about aren’t represented in the development plan to their satisfaction. So this will become an issue certainly in the mayor’s race and probably in at least some of the City Council races.
Noah: [00:05:29] OK. Dr Noll. Essentially, it seems to me when we talk about the politics of this issue, the tension is between what the A’s want versus what the city wants its showdown about who’s paying for some of these public benefits, if I’m correct.
Dr. Noll: [00:05:43] I think that the right way to think about the debate is how it’s framed. All right. If the debate is framed, having this development and having the Oakland A’s with a brand new spanking stadium that’s one of the best in Major League Baseball is sort of like building another city park or building an art museum. If it’s a public good, a public benefit that we, as citizens of Oakland all share. All right. If that’s how it’s framed, it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to say, I’m willing to pay one hundred dollars a year as my share of the tax forgiveness is in order to have this team and this development happen, the second way to frame it is the way that it often does get framed but is wrong, which is this is going to make everybody rich, right that this is some engine of economic development that’s going to transform the city, saw poverty, increase employment. You know, there’s there’s endless amounts of research by economists on that proposition. And it’s not true. In the case of a baseball team, almost all the revenue is divided by a relatively small number of players, managers and front office executives. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have them. It just means you should know that the effect, you know, if what we want is more economic development, what we need to do is attract businesses who sell their stuff outside of the local community who have a worldwide market. Yes, Oakland can do proactive things that will make Oakland a more attractive place and increase its employment increase income. But building a stadium is not one of them. That doesn’t mean a stadium isn’t worth doing, because I could say the same thing about putting a park in the middle of it. Right? That maybe you’d make more money if it maybe New York City would have greater tax revenue if Central Park were replaced by a bunch of apartment houses. But that doesn’t mean New York City shouldn’t have Central Park. It means that you just have to realize that a cost of having central. Is that there’s a whole lot of really valuable land that’s Park instead of apartment houses.
Noah: [00:07:57] So it sounds like what you’re saying is that even though this stadium may have some negative economic effects, there’s a need to determine what the presence of the stadium would bring to the city beyond revenue or other traditional measures of economic growth.
Dr. Noll: [00:08:12] You are perfectly capable of asking yourself, How much is this worth to me? You know, how much is it worth to me to live in a city that has a baseball team as opposed to doesn’t have a baseball team all else equal? All right. And if that number is something greater than zero and it’s small and indeed it’s a number greater than whatever it’s going to cost, you had your share of the subsidy to have the team then go ahead for it, you know, go for it. But that’s the right way to think about it. That’s that’s precisely politically how people should think about whether they support or oppose this proposal.
Noah: [00:08:52] How much is it worth for me to live in a city that has a baseball stadium? I wasn’t expecting a conversation on economics and sports stadiums to become subjective in this way. And I didn’t expect that there’d be parallels between what the A’s mean Oakland versus what Central Park means in New York City. But Dr Noel raises great points. Oakland does have to consider what personal value is brought to them by having a stadium in their backyard. This will help folks determine their own support for the proposal. If it isn’t a positive economic impact that’s valued, then what exactly is it that the stadium could bring to the community? This conversation on what a stadium is worth to a city reminded me of a key aspect of the stadium proposal. The Community Benefits Agreement Community Benefits Agreements generally are multi-party contracts executed by community based organizations and developers. It’s essentially a project that earns approval of community based organization through intentional community engagement and deliberation. So if we’re asking the question about the value of sports stadiums on a subjective level, I had to find out more about the tangible community benefits associated with the project. So I spoke with Veronica Cummings. Veronica is a stakeholder engagement lead with the city of Oakland and also an alumna of the Goldman School of Public Policy. Here’s Veronica explaining some of the community benefits associated with the A’s proposal
Veronica: [00:10:12] for the Howard Terminal proposal. The community benefits process has been just this really innovative equity centered process where there were seven topic cohorts that were formed. That was a result of us doing extensive community engagement to ask community members what they were interested in the Howard Terminal community benefits including. And so just for about 18 months this topic, cohort members work to develop recommendations that really address the root causes of disparities that exist in Oakland that could be addressed in the Howard Terminal, Community Benefits and so the city of Oakland. We’ve taken the recommendations and we have really identified three buckets of community benefits. And so the first one is the affordable housing. And so the city of Oakland. We have looked at this project and identified what is financially feasible to build the affordable housing, but for both on and off site. And then the second bucket is the jobs component because jobs above and beyond what policies might be required at the developer are really important and especially in a city that has high levels of unemployment. The third bucket is the community fund and the community fund. It’s a fluid way of taking those recommendations that the community stakeholders made in August of 2020 and finding a way to make this happen.
Noah: [00:11:48] Veronica also touched on some of the overall benefits that would come to the community beyond the community benefits that have been hammered out
Veronica: [00:11:56] so that, you know, one of the big benefit that I encourage people to really look at is the fact that number one, this project will keep the A’s in Oakland. The reality is that in the past few years, two out of three of our major sports teams have left. And so keeping the Oakland A’s in Oakland, that’s a huge benefit, right? There are, you know, critically needed housing that will be constructed as part of this project and of which a good percentage of them will be affordable. The project includes up to three thousand residential units and the city of Oakland. We’ve really done the work to require at least 15 percent of those units on site units to be affordable and also using the community fund, as well as tax increment to provide additional. All off site, affordable housing, construction, preservation, anti displacement prevention, etc..
Noah: [00:12:59] So if you think there are some competing forces here, you’re not wrong. Dr. Noll spoke on the negative economic impacts of sports stadiums, and Veronica spoke on the positive aspects of community benefits brought to the city through the stadium. But I actually found more similarities between their insights than you might expect. Both Veronica and Doctrinal agreed that this stadium proposal is different from traditional stadium proposals, and most importantly, the community has to determine the value that this stadium brings. I think that gets to the heart of why this has been such a contentious issue between the city, the county, the A’s and the community. There are valid questions about what this could mean economically for the city. But that doesn’t take away from the non-economic benefits that could be brought to the city through the stadium. The clock is ticking on whether a deal will be forged. So my final question is to Dr. Noll. We’re about where exactly this proposal is headed. So, Dr, no, moving forward, what do you think happens with this stadium proposal?
Dr. Noll: [00:14:02] The ayes have alternatives. The city doesn’t. So the bargaining power is on the part of the ayes. We know that there are three cities that are trying to get the age to move there. Portland, Sacramento and Las Vegas. Sacramento already has half a stadium and you know so, and Las Vegas has a polluted political environment that’s highly favorable. They were willing to throw at you a whole lot of money at the Raiders, right? $900 million. So. This gives the A’s alternatives by comparison. If the A’s leave Oakland, Oakland is extremely unlikely ever to have a baseball team again. All right. Major League Baseball team, just like they’re almost certainly not going to have an NFL team anytime in the foreseeable future. So that gives the leverage to the A’s. And so it’s extremely unlikely that Oakland is going to manage to keep the A’s without giving them a lot. All right. And then whether that’s worth it or not is something each person who lives there has to ask themselves.
Noah: [00:15:18] All right. My final question for you is a year from now. Where exactly do you think this proposal is going to be?
Dr. Noll: [00:15:26] I think sometime in the winter, they’re going to fish or cut bait. And I don’t know which one, but if I had to guess, I would say that it won’t happen, that the city of Oakland, financially, they just can’t afford to spend the amount of money necessary to keep the A’s. I don’t know whether that’s true. I have no inside information, but I think it’s more likely than not that no deal will be made. And that’s because the A’s have options and the city is not a rich city.
Noah: [00:16:02] On October 26, Alameda County supervisors voted to help finance the Howard Terminal project. This vote signifies the county’s approval to contribute future tax revenue to help the team pay for parks, affordable housing and other infrastructure. Now, the city and county both have a non-binding agreement with the A’s. It’s a significant sign of progress, but a few steps still remain before a binding agreement is forged. So, Amy, what did you think?
Amy: [00:16:40] Well, I’d never heard of a community benefits agreement before, and I’d love to see this as a new model for city planning. It’s incredible that a group of people took so much time and energy to lay out the best way to both save the A’s and help the community at the same time, frankly, after two years of COVID, where we can see our friends much less gather in stadiums. I can’t think of a better time to fight for something that can bring us together again.
Noah: [00:17:01] And what’s your prediction? What happens a year from now?
Amy: [00:17:04] Well, I’m hoping this goes through for a lot of reasons, but the major one is that we need housing. The idea of an additional three thousand units would be a pretty big win for the city. I think having such a powerful core of supporters is going to get this proposal over the line. How about you?
Noah: [00:17:17] I agree. I think we’ll see the A’s stay in Oakland with the new stadium. But there’s a small caveat. Like Dr. Noll said, the A’s have leverage here. I think the city and the county, unfortunately, will be forced to make some concessions when it comes to these benefits. So the proposal, as it currently stands, may be very different from what we see down the road. I’m hopeful that the next time a modern day stadium, though, it’ll be at Howard Terminal for a game and not the Coliseum for a vaccination.
Amy: [00:17:48] Talk policy to me is a co-production of UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy and the Berkeley Institute for Young Americans.
Noah: [00:17:54] Our executive producers are Bora Lee Reed and Sarah Swanbeck.
Amy: [00:17:58] Noah Cole produced and edited this episode
Noah: [00:18:01] the music you heard today is by Blue Dot Sessions and Pat Messiti Miller.
Amy: [00:18:05] I’m Amy Benziger.
Noah: [00:18:06] And I’m Noah Cole.
Amy: [00:18:07] Catch you next time.
