Two weeks ago the Peralta Community College District’s Board of Trustees directed the college district’s Chancellor to immediately discontinue talks with the Oakland Athletics who were positioning to acquire the 13-acre parcel of community college-owned land at 333 East 8th Street upon which they had planned to build a new Major League ballpark.

And while there are those who are still holding out hope that the move was simply a negotiating tactic on behalf of the district, we’ll note that the Athletics have just quietly disabled the (now former) website dedicated to their plans for a new ballpark and directed all traffic back to the A’s official MLB site.

27 thoughts on “Oakland A’s Relegate New Ballpark Site to the Disabled List”
  1. Bummer. That was the best site of all proposals I have seen. Walkable to BART too, and in a quickly developing nice part around tthe lake.

  2. This all falls on the team. They didn’t even bother to check if the district was interested in a deal before going public with their efforts. Really amateurish on their part.

    1. I’m not sure that’s true, as it appears they were in talks with the Chancellor (for Laney) coincident with the announcement; though why him, I’m not sure, since the plan – the bulk of it at least – was on the (Peralta) District property rather than Laney, per se.

      Unfortunately intense rumor-mongering probably forced their hand.

      1. Any attempt to build on land held by a community college (district) was going to be met with serious resistance. And that’s to say nothing of the surrounding neighborhood’s concerns. The A’s botched this whole thing badly.

        1. I dunno. I’d say the board of the community college district botched it badly. They had a chance to improve their property values significantly. That doesn’t come along every day in downtown Oakland.

          1. Wait… you’re serious? The district and college whose staff, students, and neighbors were vocally against the stadium and then rejected giving in to let it happen botched it? No, I don’t think so.

          2. Yes, he’s serious. They botched it. Laney staff should know that they could’ve negotiated an extremely lucrative deal relative to what Oakland will be able to give them, students protest because they think with passion and without information–like kids do–and as far as neighbors? Well, I’m a neighbor and I’m for it, along with several other neighbors.

          3. Agree also that community college botched it badly. An underfunded community college with means to negotiate/generate more revenues on lands that are not being used in service of its students is a good action to take. Closing the door was very short sighted.

            As a degree holding Step Father of a community college student myself (she is at a different school) my thoughts, my dollars, my taxes believe that the last place a college board should be taking direction from is students. The staff have legit concerns access in and out of campus on game days but their is always work around and negotiations still to be had.

            In the meantime, building a new stadium at current location pretty much guarantees a huge parcel of land will not become available for housing with great transit access. Simply put, why would A’s/Alameda County give up parking at Coliseum site? How is that a win for Oakland?

        2. Yeah, Don’t get me wrong – I love Laney as an institution – think they have a great mission and a lot of passionate staff work hard to deliver education to the kids. But as far as I can tell – none of that had to change if they allowed the Stadium and they could have made some $$$.

          This isn’t like the stupid Phil Tagami coal depot, or the acres of grow houses filling up East Oakland. This is a project with little downside to the community. Having 25% of the City’s population living below the federal poverty line is not a good thing. It’s a bad thing. Oakland needs the $$$. The district blew it.

        1. While the Supreme Court did just refuse to hear Miranda v. Selig, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act in 1998, amending the Clayton Act. And watchers of the Court have long felt that Flood v. Kuhn was ripe for overturning. So it may well just be a matter of time before the SF Giants and their MLB corporate shills have their monopoly powers overturned….

          1. Yes, Congress could pass a law overturning part of all of baseball’s antitrust exemption. Do you think Congress is going to do so?

          2. Quite some time, as that was almost 2 decades ago; what, specifically, do you see as changing in the next few years that will prompt this epiphany?

            And of course that’s making the leap of logic – small leap or a yawning chasm, depending on who you ask – that moving to SJ is a good thing..which is to assume that a team which has drawn fair-to-middlin’ will suddenly draw well, consistently.

          3. Yes, I think Congress could pass a law overturning part of all of baseball’s antitrust exemption. Not saying it’s going to happen in 2018, but I would not be surprised if it happened in the next 8 years….

  3. L(A’s) Veg(A’s) A’s?

    Still think my idea of the A’s and Laney (& College of Alameda) switching locations is best plan. New ballpark downtown. New state-of-the-art community college at the coliseum site. Win-win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *