MLB vs. SJ stadium ballot measure

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig 'disappointed' by San Jose's move for a stadium ballot measure

By Tracy Seipel
Updated: 07/24/2010 07:05:16 AM PDT

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15588282

Major League Baseball officials on Friday blasted San Jose's plans to place an A's ballpark measure on the ballot, even as city leaders unveiled details of what voters would be asked in November.

"We were surprised and disappointed by the news today in San Jose," Commissioner Bud Selig said in a brief statement. He called a stadium referendum "premature" while a panel of experts continues to study whether the team should move to San Jose or stay in Oakland.

Mayor Chuck Reed, who was vacationing, issued his own statement saying that with an Aug. 3 deadline to place the measure on the ballot, the city could no longer wait for Selig to decide. "It's now or never," Reed said.

What had seemed like a never-ending waiting game abruptly turned into a high-stakes faceoff Thursday when the mayor vowed to put the issue before voters with or without baseball's approval. Now some wonder if Reed and A's owner Lew Wolff have unwittingly threatened the city's chances of landing the team.

Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who specializes in sports economics, says no. "Of course they're annoyed," he said of baseball officials. "But this doesn't change the fact that this problem has to get resolved. It doesn't make sense to have a persistently weak franchise playing in a crappy facility."

But one local political observer — who asked not to be named because of ties to both the A's and the San Francisco Giants — called the flare-up "disastrous."

He predicted city residents would be apprehensive about voting for something that Major League officials might not approve. And he said Wolff's "premature effort" might turn some team owners against him; a vote by ¾ of those owners is needed to strip baseball's territorial rights to the South Bay from the Giants and award them to the A's.

Reed said he's confident that "a strong statement of support from San Jose voters this November" will make baseball officials less hesitant about letting the team move here.

If that happens, Wolff has said he will pay to build the $461 million ballpark, provided city voters give the team permission to build on city land.

It's unclear why Reed and Wolff are so fixed on a November vote. The city clerk has said that a special election could be scheduled as early as next March, and some political experts say a special election would be more likely to draw stadium backers than opponents.

While a special election would cost the city at least $1 million to stage, Wolff and the local grass-roots group Pro Baseball for San Jose have said they will pay to put the question before voters.

Mayoral spokeswoman Michelle McGurk said the city would rather spend that money on outreach to voters instead of seeing it spent on a special election. And Michael Mulcahy, co-chair of the grass-roots group, added: "San Jose needs to control its own destiny."

Meanwhile, Wolff — a college fraternity brother of Selig's — said he supported the city's decision to proceed without baseball's blessing.

"We and the city want to have as many unknowns identified and completed as possible should a decision on the new venue we seek be forthcoming," he said. He added that if baseball rules not to rescind the Giants' territorial rights, "We will, of course, abide by the commissioner's decision.''

In his statement, Selig said the committee he appointed 16 months ago "will continue its work unaltered" by Reed's move; the commissioner plans to meet with committee members Monday.

Reed says he is likewise seeking a meeting with the commissioner's office next week to discuss the issue more fully. But baseball officials clearly were unhappy about being blindsided by Reed's Thursday announcement.

The mayor's staff said Reed had tried to contact Selig about the ballot measure earlier this week but never heard back. Other sources, however, say the only outreach by the mayor's office was early Friday morning. Reed is hiking in the Sierra Nevada to celebrate his wedding anniversary.

On Friday, the mayor and council members Sam Liccardo, Rose Herrera and Nancy Pyle released the proposed ballot language and details about the measure that would authorize the city and its redevelopment agency to push ahead with a downtown ballpark.

In addition to five major negotiating principles the council established last May for the development of a stadium, the memo added several more. They include: no new taxes would be imposed to fund ballpark-related expenditures; no public money would be spent on ballpark maintenance; and no city funds will be used for traffic control, street cleanup, security or emergency services within the ballpark site.

Finally, if the 14-acre parcel near the Diridon rail station is leased for a ballpark, the team must be willing at the end of the lease either to buy the property at fair market value, transfer ownership of the stadium to the city or clear the site to make way for other development. "If the stadium has exceeded its useful life, then we don't want the taxpayers to pick up the bill for its demolition," Liccardo explained.

The council's Rules and Open Government Committee, which Reed chairs, will review the proposal Wednesday and decide whether to place it on the Aug. 3 council agenda.

--------------------------------------------------------

MLB COMMISSIONER"S STATEMENT

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig issued the following statement Friday regarding Mayor Chuck Reed"s proposal to put the A"s stadium referendum on the November ballot.
"We were surprised and disappointed by the news today in San Jose about the stadium referendum. We were not part of the process and had no knowledge that a decision to proceed with the election had been made. A ballot referendum is premature and completely independent of the ongoing work of the committee which has been in place to thoroughly study this situation.
"There is an established process in place and the committee will continue its work unaltered by these actions. Consistent with the ongoing evaluation of the Oakland A"s situation, the committee will meet with me once again this Monday. As I have said before, the object in this very complicated situation is not to get it done as fast as possible, but to get it done right."

BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR SAN JOSE"S BALLPARK MEASURE

"Shall the San Jose Downtown Ballpark and Jobs Measure be approved to authorize, but not require, the use of Redevelopment Agency funds, with no new taxes, to acquire and clear a site for a baseball stadium, fund related off-site improvements and lease the site for a professional baseball team where the team would pay all on-site construction costs, operation and maintenance costs, generating new tax revenues for city operations?"

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by fremonter on July 25, 2010 at 3:22pm

Well, at least it's still not too late for Fremont residents to remind MLB that their opinions about this concept have not changed. What's going on with Selig and his compas, anyway? It took Obama less time to come up with a war strategy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dexter on July 28, 2010 at 6:05pm

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed rescinds proposal to put downtown ballpark measure on fall ballot
(SJ Merc)

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15623488?nclick_check=1

By Tracy Seipel
Updated: 07/28/2010 02:36:44 PM PDT

Mayor Chuck Reed today announced that he is tabling efforts to place a downtown ballpark initiative on the November 2 ballot.

The decision was anticipated after Reed's discussion Tuesday with Major League Baseball President Bob DuPuy, who had asked the mayor to delay his plans. Reed angered baseball officials last week by announcing his intent to proceed with a ballpark vote even though baseball has not decided if the Oakland A's should be allowed to move to San Jose

DuPuy said MLB would agree to help cover the taxpayer cost if a special election is required in the spring. That cost is expected to be at least $1 million.

"I pursued a November election because I believe the citizens of San Jose deserve to have their voices heard,'' said Reed in a prepared statement. "We have strong community support to build a privately-funded ballpark, which would be a catalyst for thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue.''

But after a talk with A's owner Wolff, other elected officials and members of the grassroots group Pro Baseball For San Jose, Reed will rescind his request for a November ballot measure.

"Everybody agreed that the right course of action is to honor the commissioner's request" Reed added in an interview with the Mercury News.

He said that while he's convinced city voters would approve the ballpark proposal, he believes the uncertainty is a "major impediment" to baseball officials' approval of an A's move to San Jose.

In the same statement, Wolff said he is grateful that San Jose "has shown a gritty determination to help us build a new ballpark." Wolff also praised the leadership of Reed and of baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, whom Wolff has known for decades

"We look forward to a final decision from the Commissioner," Wolff said, "and will vigorously pursue an election next year if that decision is a positive one."

The city council's Rules Committee will still decide today whether to place amendments to the proposed ballpark negotiating principles on the council's August 3 agenda. The committee also will discuss four other proposed ballot measures to increase taxes and rein in employee costs.

Since April 2009, city leaders have been working with the Athletics on a possible relocation to San Jose. In that time, the city has developed a set of negotiating principles for a new stadium; completed an economic analysis and environmental impact review for a downtown ballpark; and met with members of a special committee Selig formed to study ballpark options for the A's.

City leaders have been waiting for a response from MLB regarding territorial rights that currently prevent the Athletics from moving to San Jose. Those rights are held by the San Francisco Giants, who vociferously object to Wolff's relocation plans.

"The Commissioner's offer to help pay for a possible election in the spring was the first indication that the league is inching closer to a decision on territorial rights," Councilmember Sam Liccardo said.

Reed, Liccardo and councilwomen Rose Herrera and Nancy Pyle last week proposed placing the downtown ballpark measure on the November ballot to avoid the added expense of a special election.

Voter approval is required to use city land or funds in conjunction with a downtown ballpark.

The proposed ballot language, which is based on the council-approved negotiating principles, required that the A's would be responsible for building, operating and maintaining a new MLB ballpark. No new taxes could be raised to bring baseball to San Jose, but 14 acres of downtown land could be used for the project.

Wolff has already said the A's will pay for the $461 million ballpark near the Diridon train station.

In an interview, Reed said he had no regrets over last week's decision to publicly call for a November ballpark vote.

"It's always a difficult decision how hard to push and when to stand back," he said. "I think we did apply an appropriate amount of pressure. We made some progress. I'm more optimistic."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dexter on August 2, 2010 at 4:01pm

Tricky Lew...

A question and answer session on baseball in San Jose (Inside Bay Area)

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_15642334
By Scott Herhold
Mercury News Columnist
Posted: 08/01/2010 12:00:00 AM PDT

The dominant theme at San Jose City Hall over the past week has been baseball — specifically, the city's quest to land a ballpark for the A's. The better metaphor might have come from football: A seeming fumble by the offensive team was recovered and advanced down the field.

Is all well that ends well? Yes. But the head-scratching was inevitable when Mayor Chuck Reed announced he would pursue a ballot measure for an A's ballpark — only to reverse direction after Major League Baseball promised to help pay for a later election if necessary.

Here are a few questions and answers to elucidate the affair. (And a word about my bias: I'm for a downtown A's ballpark, even though I'm a National League fan. It would do much for San Jose's sometimes-beleaguered identity.)

Did A's owner Lew Wolff plan this as a deliberate ploy?

You have to assume the answer is yes. Wolff at least thought through the permutations before persuading Reed to push for an election (remember: The A's owner is driving this train). If Wolff got a reaction from baseball — which he did — it would help him. If it went to a vote in San Jose and won, it would give him leverage both with other owners and the city. Even a loss at the polls could help define the future. What Wolff, 74, could not take was more of the purgatory of waiting. He wants to see a ballpark in his lifetime.

Why was this played out in the open? Couldn't the threat of a ballot measure have been delivered privately to MLB?

Part of this has to do with the personality of Bud Selig, baseball's commissioner and Wolff's old fraternity brother. Selig is a busy man, with much on his plate. But he is sensitive to his image in the media, a fact Wolff knows.

An open announcement of a ballot measure push was thus designed to force his response. The most likely way that the A's will come to San Jose is in a brokered settlement with the San Francisco Giants, who hold Major League Baseball's territorial rights to the South Bay. And MLB's pledge to foot part of the bill for a future election implies that the brokered option is still on the table.

Did Reed lose political capital in reversing course so quickly?

You can't say, "It's now or never," as Reed did, and then back off without raising questions. It clearly is not now or never. But the loss of political capital is minimal. Reed can at least make the case that he got a response from MLB and thus moved matters forward. (A cynic would say the forward fumble theory applies.)

What was odd — but maybe explainable if you see the ballot measure as a gambit — was that the mayor's approach seemed to lean toward the passive.

After Reed first announced his drive for a ballot measure, he went off to celebrate his 40th wedding anniversary with his wife, letting aides explain one of the most momentous moves of his mayoralty. The mayor left a phone message for officials at Major League Baseball. But his top aide, Pete Furman, says he doesn't believe the message spelled out Reed's plans for a ballot measure.

How big were the risks for San Jose?

They were substantial. Although early polls favor a ballpark — particularly when language about "no new taxes" is thrown in — they cannot fully predict the effects of an organized opposition, which could have been funded by the Giants. That was one reason MLB criticized the mayor's move.

Unlike the 49ers ballot initiative in Santa Clara, San Jose's legalistic ballot language could easily have been attacked for leaving too many unanswered questions. And a defeat in November might well have doomed the chances of getting a ballpark for a decade or more.

How much does the Major League Baseball promise mean?

This depends on whether you judge a glass to be half-empty or half-full. Certainly, the MLB pledge to help with election costs doesn't commit Selig to San Jose. He could decide that it's too difficult to deal with the territorial rights issue.

But remember, the history of the Expos moving from Montreal to Washington, D.C., suggests that baseball can dither at length before a deal comes together. Once it does, it's in MLB's interests to get behind the deal squarely. That has to be San Jose's hope.