Sports

Lawsuit aims to void vote allowing Oakland A's Howard Terminal project to move forward

'The A's are interested in doing something fast ... We're interested in doing something right'

The Oakland A's released renderings of their proposed new ballpark at Howard Terminal near Jack London Square in Oakland. (Image courtesy Bjarke Ingels Group)

Truckers, longshore workers and others opposed to a billion-dollar Oakland A's ballpark planned at the Charles P. Howard Terminal in Oakland have filed a lawsuit against a little-known Bay Area commission over its decision to allow the A's to build at the terminal pending other regulatory approvals.

The suit was filed July 29 in Alameda County Superior Court by the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, a coalition that wants the A's to redevelop their current home at the RingCentral Coliseum. The coalition includes the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Harbor Trucking Association and the California Trucking Association.

The A's want to build a stadium that seats about 35,000 people at Howard Terminal, which is on the waterfront at the Port of Oakland. Plans also call for the development of housing, open space, commercial space and a performing arts venue near the stadium.

"The A's are interested in doing something fast," said attorney and vice president Michael Jacob of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, a nonprofit representing owners and operators of marine terminals and U.S. and foreign vessels. "We're interested in doing something right."

The suit is seeking to void the decision by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which said the Bay Area does not need the land at Howard Terminal for shipping operations.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

It was a decision the Oakland A's needed to move forward with building a new stadium to replace the Coliseum, which A's president Dave Kaval said is years past its useful life.

Kaval said the A's weren't expecting the suit against the commission's decision. He said it's not a good development for Oakland, which has recently lost two other professional sports teams and could lose the A's, too.

The Golden State Warriors moved to San Francisco and the Oakland Raiders are now the Las Vegas Raiders. Like the Raiders, the A's are considering a move to Las Vegas.

Kaval said the suit against the BCDC puts the project in Oakland at risk.

The A's now have a handful of sites in Las Vegas the team is considering.

"There are plenty of options that work," Kaval said, noting that it is easier to build there.

Oakland has another hurdle to jump, too. City officials have not shown the A's a plan to pay for the off-site infrastructure near the proposed ballpark at Howard Terminal.

Also, three other suits are challenging the city of Oakland's environmental review of the Howard Terminal project. Judge Brad Seligman will consider those suits, which have been consolidated, on Aug. 19.

The decision by the BCDC followed a recommendation by the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee, which advises the commission. The advisory committee recommended maintaining Howard Terminal for port use.

Jacob thinks the commission should have taken that recommendation. Instead, the commission made its decision based on new information that the advisory committee did not consider. Jacob said the advisory committee should have considered the new information before the commission voted.

Opponents to the Howard Terminal proposal also allege in the complaint that the commission's chair R. Zachary Wasserman should have recused himself from the vote.

The complaint says the Oakland A's were once a client of Wasserman and his firm in connection with another ballpark development at the Coliseum.

But Wasserman said last week that an opinion from the California Fair Political Practices Commission said he could participate in the vote and added that nothing in common law would yield a different conclusion.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you political news. Become a member today.

Lawsuit aims to void vote allowing Oakland A's Howard Terminal project to move forward

'The A's are interested in doing something fast ... We're interested in doing something right'

by Keith Burbank / Bay City News Service

Uploaded: Thu, Aug 11, 2022, 8:19 am

Truckers, longshore workers and others opposed to a billion-dollar Oakland A's ballpark planned at the Charles P. Howard Terminal in Oakland have filed a lawsuit against a little-known Bay Area commission over its decision to allow the A's to build at the terminal pending other regulatory approvals.

The suit was filed July 29 in Alameda County Superior Court by the East Oakland Stadium Alliance, a coalition that wants the A's to redevelop their current home at the RingCentral Coliseum. The coalition includes the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the Harbor Trucking Association and the California Trucking Association.

The A's want to build a stadium that seats about 35,000 people at Howard Terminal, which is on the waterfront at the Port of Oakland. Plans also call for the development of housing, open space, commercial space and a performing arts venue near the stadium.

"The A's are interested in doing something fast," said attorney and vice president Michael Jacob of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, a nonprofit representing owners and operators of marine terminals and U.S. and foreign vessels. "We're interested in doing something right."

The suit is seeking to void the decision by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which said the Bay Area does not need the land at Howard Terminal for shipping operations.

It was a decision the Oakland A's needed to move forward with building a new stadium to replace the Coliseum, which A's president Dave Kaval said is years past its useful life.

Kaval said the A's weren't expecting the suit against the commission's decision. He said it's not a good development for Oakland, which has recently lost two other professional sports teams and could lose the A's, too.

The Golden State Warriors moved to San Francisco and the Oakland Raiders are now the Las Vegas Raiders. Like the Raiders, the A's are considering a move to Las Vegas.

Kaval said the suit against the BCDC puts the project in Oakland at risk.

The A's now have a handful of sites in Las Vegas the team is considering.

"There are plenty of options that work," Kaval said, noting that it is easier to build there.

Oakland has another hurdle to jump, too. City officials have not shown the A's a plan to pay for the off-site infrastructure near the proposed ballpark at Howard Terminal.

Also, three other suits are challenging the city of Oakland's environmental review of the Howard Terminal project. Judge Brad Seligman will consider those suits, which have been consolidated, on Aug. 19.

The decision by the BCDC followed a recommendation by the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee, which advises the commission. The advisory committee recommended maintaining Howard Terminal for port use.

Jacob thinks the commission should have taken that recommendation. Instead, the commission made its decision based on new information that the advisory committee did not consider. Jacob said the advisory committee should have considered the new information before the commission voted.

Opponents to the Howard Terminal proposal also allege in the complaint that the commission's chair R. Zachary Wasserman should have recused himself from the vote.

The complaint says the Oakland A's were once a client of Wasserman and his firm in connection with another ballpark development at the Coliseum.

But Wasserman said last week that an opinion from the California Fair Political Practices Commission said he could participate in the vote and added that nothing in common law would yield a different conclusion.

Comments

Jake Waters
Registered user
Birdland
on Aug 14, 2022 at 2:14 pm
Jake Waters, Birdland
Registered user
on Aug 14, 2022 at 2:14 pm

I’ve been an A’s fan since they moved here. For a long time (had season tickets), I’ve lived on hope that the organization actually wants a baseball team. Oakland residents are a very small, small pool of attendee’s- they barley have enough customers to pay for the lights. The stadium is the worst in the MLB- period, but why build a beautiful complex and not put money towards building an organization of players that can compete? Lastly, why build a stadium that has no mass transit to connect it? A Friday night game will take you 3 days to get there.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.