Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: Stories: Blogs: Today

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

Neither of the financing structures would expose the general fund. The district is set up so that it can issue the bonds to finance infrastructure (i disagree with your take that the stadium isn't considered a public works project here, but that is immaterial). If the project fails, the district declares the bankruptcy not the city. The city and county would fund the district staff and admin costs and then the district would become a self-financing entity. Private issue bonds are also issued by other than the city and county so that party would be responsible for them if the project financials don't support repayment of the principal and interest. The interest rates for these debt issues will be higher than for the city and county, but this project must be a money-maker for the private investment group to want any part of it. The city and county would be stupid not to take it for the development alone. The costs to secure the site should the Raiders and A's move would be as much as the investment they're being asked to make here. The difference is they get some political points and a stadium which produces additional city revenue and creates additional jobs in the area. The math on stadia is traditionally based on a much more hefty investment by the city and county.

As for why folks still discuss Mt. Davis, I can only assume a lack of formal economics training and education as those are considered sunk costs. The city and county will be on he hook for them whether the Raiders are using the stadium/land or not. So is it disingenuous to add those costs to this project. Those costs are due either way. The difference here is that they can be due and the city receiving revenue from use of the stadium or they can be due with absolutely zero offsetting revenue.

The only real question is whether or not the group is trying to get Mark Davis to sell them part of the team as a condition.

Posted by coachglove on 12/10/2016 at 9:29 PM

Re: “Coal Terminal Developer Suing City of Oakland, Seeking to Overturn Ban on Fossil Fuel Exports

mmarteeen, where are you seeing uncovered coal cars next to the 880 near Jack London? Those are covered oil tanker cars, my friend. They are bad bad bad and may contain Bakken crude, which is explosive and dirty, but it ain't coal.

Posted by Jessea Greenman on 12/10/2016 at 8:37 PM

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

I have one thing to say: Raiders, go to Las Vegas. Please.
Take your team, your rep, and your game somewhere else.
Why should Oakland go begging for this when we have residents who are hardcore fans getting turned out by greed and gentrification? Raiders were a part of Oakland culture but apparently we need to burn dollars at the feet of their owners to make them love us as much as we love them. Screw that.

Posted by whitney smith on 12/10/2016 at 8:25 PM

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

The citizens of Oakland should be very wary of Mayor Schaaf and her assertion on one hand that there will be no public money and on the other hand, the deal includes throwing in $150 million, the value of the (public) land, plus $350 million (plus $95 million to pay off Mt. Al) in infrastructure to be financed by private bonds and repaid from stadium revenues. The people of Oakland and the City Council need to ask a lot of questions on the record about this bond approach prior to approval. Who is left holding the bag if the revenues are not there? When and where has this private bond financing approach for public projects been used and what was the outcome? I am skeptical of any new, never tried wall street financing instruments. Many cities over the last 20 years have been holding the bag on projects that they wanted so bad, they were willing to experiment with non traditional financing. At the end of the day, the Mayor needs to be honest with the public. Don't play word games. I don't personally have a problem with the city giving away the land. The Redevelopment Agency acquired those parcels along Hegenberger Rd for the sole purpose of a new stadium construction project. I am worried that she will get out in front of this before knowing the details and once again for the citizens of Oakland, it will be ready, shoot, aim.

Posted by Gary Patton on 12/10/2016 at 5:02 PM

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

Schaaf came into office insisting no public money for a stadium. Now she offers the spoiled owner of the Raiders public money. She wants the City to pour one or two hundred million dollars into bonds that would be repaid by anticipated tax revenues from development. These tax revenues should support and normally would support City services -- but here they would be diverted into paying off bonds that built stuff of benefit to the Raiders owner. Schaaf lies.

Posted by Charlie Pine on 12/10/2016 at 11:27 AM

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

Wait... The city doesn't have enough money to staff basic things like fire and building inspectors, but thinks there is money for this? WTF?!?! Screw that! Raiders go away!

Posted by Bruce Ferrell on 12/10/2016 at 10:34 AM

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

No, no, no! Football is not a sport. It's a glorified method by which society promotes the ongoing creation of traumatic brain injuries. There are so many better ways to spend that money.

Posted by Cyrus 1 on 12/10/2016 at 9:41 AM

Re: “Oakland to Vote on $350 Million Public Subsidy for New $1.3 Billion Raiders Stadium This Tuesday

"Skin in the game" means nothing other than the assumption of financial risk by the citizens of Oakland. Oakland citizens have been here before because of the fantasies of electeds.

Oakland electeds love to hire consultants to cover their behinds. It seems to me with hundreds of millions of public dollars at stake the feedback from an independent financial consultant might be very useful as to the precise nature of the financial risks to us as a city.

In general sports arenas have not turned out to be of significant financial benefit to cities. This is important in light of the many shortcomings in Oakland regarding public safety due to lack of adequate resources. Homicides and deadly fires come to mind.

Posted by Hobart Johnson on 12/10/2016 at 7:14 AM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation