OAKLAND, Calif. — The Oakland City Council made clear on Tuesday what they want the financial terms to look like for the A’s proposed waterfront ballpark project, but it’s unclear if it will be enough to keep the team at the negotiating table and in Oakland.
Even after city staff and council members publicly proposed amendments that would guarantee the A’s don’t have to pay for infrastructure funding around the proposed ballpark and development on Howard Terminal, A’s Team President Dave Kaval rejected the city’s terms.
“The current team sheet even with these amendments is not something the A’s have consensus around,” Kaval said, after complimenting the city staff on working hard to create the latest proposal. “From our perspective, this is not a term sheet that works for the A’s. We had a term sheet we originally proposed. … The current term sheet as its constructed is not a business partnership that works for us.”
The feedback was a blow to the City Council, who expressed their disappointment that the A’s said they wouldn’t get on board with the latest iteration of the terms.
“I’m not exactly sure why we’re even here today,” Carroll Fife, the councilmember representing District 3, where the ballpark’s proposed future home at Howard Terminal is located. “All the hours that went into creating this document, as well as almost three hours of public testimony is just a fraction of the investment that’s gone into this process. … If the A’s are still not happy even after city has bent over backwards … even with how these wealthy owners dont have to pay for infrastructure. I don’t know where we go from here.”
Fife abstained from voting on the draft terms that the majority of the City Council approved. Other City Council members expressed their hope that the A’s would come back to the negotiating table to continue discussing the financial terms that can be finalized later in the year.
It’s unclear, though, if that will happen.
The A’s had demanded the City Council take up a vote on a proposed term sheet the team unveiled publicly in April. Despite that no final vote can be taken to seal the terms until a draft environmental impact report is ready for approval later this year, Kaval has said the team needed to know if the City Council “shared the vision” the team has for the project, and requested a vote before the council’s summer recess.
Now that the City Council has approved terms that its staff has recommended, it’s up to the A’s to decide if they’ll keep negotiating with the city or leave for a new city, as Kaval has threatened to do.
