good afternoon. >> today we have ve ve ve ve vee it is an enormous topic and complicated. we will try to simplify it. the future of the oakland athletics and the ballpark proposal. >> we have a lot to get to. let's welcome the president of the oakland a's.>> and the oakland city council member and the oakland city supervisor. thank you for joining us. >> so we are all on the same page, because some of our viewers are new to this, i want to give them a run through of

the time line as we talk about how we can get to a new home for the oakland a's. on tuesday they will make their official pitch asking alameda county regarding sharing the property tax revenue to help offset infrastructure costs. on the 20th they will cast a nonbinding financial agreement vote and sometime in september we are expecting a binding vote and in oakland vote in the fall. >> so you guys all know, i think my role today is to be guest referee because everyone has different opinions about this. we will talk about howard terminal. let's start by giving everyone a chance to state their case, and, dave, you have been on a few times in the past. where are we with howard terminal and why is it the best for the oakland a's in the community? >> i want to thank you for organizing this special half- hour session with

discuss this critical issue. we are at a critical point at our future in oakland. we have a dynamic plan for a waterfront ballpark at howard terminal. over $12 billion in private investments and $450 million in community benefits and $1 billion for the general fund. we think this can be done in a responsible way and we are excited to get to a point where this could get approved by the council with a nonbinding vote this summer and then a binding vote in the fall. we are hopeful that we get those affirmative votes so we can move forward with the project in a meaningful way. the current stadium is over 50 years old and it is past its useful life. we only have an actual agreement through 2024, and we need to find a solution and we are running out of time.>> i know you don't have to make

your decision until july 20th anyone take more time to think about this, but where do you stand and how do you like the howard terminal rapoza. >> i want to see them stay here in oakland and when it comes to howard terminal, we are open to pursue that direction. i think we need to be more clear for the citizens in terms of the investments that oakland will have to make an we are reaching out to alameda county who will join us on the infant structure. right now our financial condition is not the greatest. and we meet the investment funds necessary. but let me make it clear. on a personal basis i would preferred that we continue to be at the coliseum, but we are at a different avenue right

now. we want to make sure it is the right investment for the city of oakland with job creation and it comes down to being able maintain to support. we want to see the oakland a's stay here.>> what is your take on this >> it is a city project and we feel a lot of resentment that we are being dragged into this we feel that this is a city project keeping the as in oakland and not the obligation of the board of supervisors. we have worked hard to get out of the sports business. people are trying to convince us that this is not a sport steel but a development deal. we are not necessarily convinced of that. we have not had an independent

analysis of the financials. we have not gotten a detail and we are trying to ascertain why this is beneficial for the county to join in. we do not state the relevance. we are skeptical and we are disturbed that we are being forced to take this matter up while we are trying to deal with homelessness, covid, housing, all kinds of issues that confront foldable populations. >> supervisor miley, you would stand to benefit to the tune of many millions of dollars if the project came to fruition, and we went along year-by-year. it was the mayor to have alameda county help out with this project, but maybe you can jump in here and square this up as to whether you are in favor

of the county being involved or if they have to be involved. is it a no go if alameda county does not help in some way?>> it is important to remember that the as are regional asset. we have fans all over the east bay and not just alameda county. it is something that the board of supervisors should consider. we have put in our analysis with the city to educate the county on the potential benefits. but it is their decision and it is a public policy decision if the county joins the effort. we are hopeful that we can find a way, whether it is with the county -- whatever mechanism is put into place to achieve success in a positive vote in july at city council.>> hold on right there. do you not have any information on this? this should be easy to resolve. you're talking to each other. dave, what is the direct benefit to the county? is it straight cash?>> you have

to remember this is a city ask they have put together a detailed piece of information. i know that we will have and informational session on tuesday , which will be beneficial. and that will be a public session and everyone can weigh in. >> one of the things i think that has gotten everyone confused, as we look at the numbers for alameda county revenue projections based on the sheet that has been put forward, but i want to talk about another part of this deal and that is the infrastructure portion. for the past couple of years you've been talking about this is privately financed, and then, in january, the council got word that you needed $855 million in infrastructure improvements in order to get this project done. it caught a lot of people by surprise. i know it caught some fans by surprise. the confusion here is over

whether the city has to come up with money up front, and correct me if i'm wrong, the oakland a's would front the money and get paid back on the backend based on tax revenues from this project. is that correct or not? >> i think it is important to remember that the tax increment only exists -- the money, if the money and the private capital is invested. it's not just sitting there. it only exists if we build a ballpark. it is called but for tax revenue. that is all that we are asking for as part of making this project a success and reality. it is very common and has been done all over san francisco. it is a more fiscally responsible way for everyone to actually tie the success of the project to taxes that actually are generated by the project. and that is why we have been

advocating for that.>> but on your end, do you have to have that 855 million because that is a sticking point or the part that city council members and perhaps the county -- could you back off from that? could you rework that? >> if it was 655, is it negotiable? >> you have to remember that some of the numbers are based on what the city has asked us to do. they are not our numbers. is not deciding that certain amounts of dollars need to be invested. many of these things are deferred maintenance on the city in general. it is something that could be negotiated with the city in terms of what is necessary iowa time. we have been really clear in our proposal. all of the on-site infrastructure, we pay for that, and over time some of this tax revenue is generated will pay us back. if the tax revenue never comes, we are still on the hook.

it is a low risk way for governmental entities to participate and make the project a reality.>> that is an important point.>> that it is negotiable. i heard that. we will take a short break and continue this conversation

it is very beneficial. >> it is meant to be a conversation. so today a special show for you. today we will focus on the howard terminal ballpark project. dave, i want to get started by talking about something. you have been here for a while,

and your image has always been one of being very friendly. you have great relationships with the media and on social media with people. you recently tweeted a message from las vegas, and you were at the golden knights in las vegas and you were talking to them in case oakland doesn't work out. i wonder if you regret the way it was received a little bit because there are definitely bands that are saying that is not the dave we know. what is the message? >> the key thing is we have spent -- in many years we have spent 20 years trying to solve this to try and get a new ballpark built. i led the effort in the last five years. we have a lease at the coliseum that goes to 2024. we deserve a great fan experience for our fans, for

the players, and we don't have any of that. we have to bring this to a resolution. i know that is hard for members of the community because they feel it is going pretty fast. but has actually been going for about 20 years and we need to know one way or the other. and we are prepared to accept whatever that is. we hope to get an affirmative vote from the town council and we can move forward in oakland. but the leak has been clear that we have to look at other options and that's why were looking at southern nevada because we have to have somewhere to play. >> i have to stop you right there. there's a mischaracterization going on right here. we both been around the block a lot of times. the commissioner does not just wake up one morning and say, this is been going on too long and i'm going to release a statement. he works in concert with the franchises. it's not like he decided one day that he unilaterally was going to do this.

this gives you pr covered to say, well, we are following the commissioners lead. it is not like your ordered rob to do this. what was your reaction when you heard about the whole vegas situation and the reaction? >> we have been here before. the same reaction and presentation before. we have to recognize and be up front. this is a business and it is a business that is privately owned. and besides enjoying the game, they are in this to make money. certainly, we need the cooperation of alameda county. oakland is in alameda county and we should be working together to be able to work together to receive the information, the financials, the investments, the cost, and at the end of the day make a decision together.

it does impact all of the residents in oakland and in alameda county because it is regional activity. i agree with dave on that. what is missing today with elected officials, we don't have all of the financial numbers presented and together. i had discussions with some oakland representatives this week and received their presentation. i had a whole different budget presentation that i'm currently getting from the city. so we are open to hear all of this. as city council hopefully we can work cooperatively with the county supervisors and be able to get the full financial obligation that the residents will have to make and be able to move forward. >> frankly, to me, it is mind- boggling that they are still question. my understanding is the term sheet was presented to council staff in january.

wasn't that the case?>> january is when we first presented it to the staff, but we have been negotiating it for over a year, is 14 months now. so we are at the point where we have told the city what we can do with our $12 million private investment and community benefits and all the different aspects of union labor. we need to know if it works. we need to know if we have a shared vision for the waterfront and a commercial operation. and that is what we are asking for the summer. >> can i just ask as a layperson in the group, i am wondering why did the waterfront location become so important? if you were to move to vegas, for example, there is no waterfront there at all. in new york or l.a., the dodgers and the yankees are both very well attended and make a lot of money. the locations are not necessarily prime. is an easy access in and out

just as important? and doesn't the howard terminal location make it more challenging? >> i think all you have to do is look across the bay to oracle park and what happened at the waterfront in san francisco and the success not only of the ballpark but of the surrounding area and what has been for san francisco fiscally and the quality of life to see what it could be here. we have to compete with the giants for fans. so we have to have an experience at that same level. if we do not, then we will not be able to compete and create a business that is as successful. and that is why we need the waterfront. we have a bold vision and we have a danish architect and it will be an amenity that people will travel long and far to actually see.>> so we mentioned las vegas. you and i have been around on this one before, but for this audience, i will bring this up. your owner is a billionaire, he went to las vegas, but it seems

like he's had no communication with members of the oakland city council. he will fly on a plane but won't cross the bridge to go to oakland. where is he? >> it is important to remember that we have had five years of negotiations and bridge building with all of the representatives in oakland, whether it is the mayor or city council members, and that includes myself as well as the owner. so that happened and it continues to happen -- >> hold on. so you are saying that he has met with -- councilman gallo, have you met with john fisher about this? >> that is news to me, and even the numbers that are presented are new to me and to some of my council colleagues. we have not had that positive presentation from the city staff that is working on this. it has all been questionable in their comments have been that

they're not providing the complete picture on what howard terminal will cost the city and the impact it will have to the port of oakland. >> i feel like everyone is talking in silos. maybe we can -->> feel free to ask each other questions.>> please talk to each other.

>> we are back with a special edition of getting answers with larry bell because we are talking about howard terminal. >> during the break, i hope you were watching a facebook live because supervisor miley made a great point about how long this has dragged on. and you mentioned during the break about the environmental impact report. 10 years ago i stood on the

coliseum field and i asked him about howard terminal and he said it was a toxic waste site and he did not want any part of this. and he is not part of the deal going forward. but i would ask gallo, no one is going to come in and clean this up . the a's are giving you the opportunity to do this on their dime. why would you not want that? >> well, i think what is being presented here is not the complete pick sure. and certainly our cooperation with the county has not been the greatest. and you are right. this is not the first time the a's tried to leave. they were already in san jose. and before that they were trying to get over to the city of fremont. so certainly it is not just the city of oakland's responsibility, but the reason

i am here is that i am elected to represent the residents of oakland. and i want to make sure we don't keep making the same mistakes we did with the raiders. i'm still planning on the raiders coming back to oakland and they are gone. so we don't want to make that same mistake. the reality, from where i sit in the information that i have, is that we don't have the complete financial obligation for the city when it comes to making that investment. and there is a lot of negativity from the port of oakland merchants to other r business entities that do not want to see a ballpark in that area. for those of us that are lifetime residents of oakland, i would welcome and enjoy seeing the coliseum rebuild. and we would invest to rebuild the coliseum to maintain the stadium , considering the fact that we already have all the transportation from the airport, the highways that

surround the coliseum. for me that is a great opportunity for oakland to continue to have a coliseum. but the a's are choosing now to be at howard terminal. and we have heard before that same argument before with different professional sports. >> councilman, can i jump in. the obvious issues -- >> oakland does not have the full capacity to build a stadium. so we need the county's cooperation, and we need the cooperation from the oakland a's. and that is the communication that has been missing until this day.>> i'm hoping we can get everyone together. i will take on the coliseum issue myself because i have been in and out of it a zillion times covering sports for an eternity. is great for ingress and egress and not much else. the stadium has been there for 55 years. there have been some he talks about putting housing and retail and nothing has ever

been done there. just the way things get done today, in order to pay for the stadium, you have to have other stuff around it. nothing has gone in there for decades. i don't see how that will change. it has never been a destination that people want to hang out at, and that will be required in order to get anything built. supervisor miley, i believe you prefer the coliseum site as well . but you said during the break that you would be willing to vote yes for this if the numbers and the term sheet held up did i hear you correctly?>> yes. the county -- obviously -- once we do our due diligence and are reassured that joining this would make sense that. but the other thing is the county administrator has been directed to look at other alternatives, other ways of supporting this without being part of an infrastructure taxing finance district. >> i think we have to leave it

there.>> we have :20. >> can you just talk amongst each other, please?>> what will it take? basically, that is what fans

this unplugged device is protecting our beautiful coastlines and more. put off chores and use less energy from 4 to 9 pm to help keep our state golden.

>> it seems to me like we need to get everyone together in a room with a bunch of accountants. and john fisher. john, show up, if you want to get a stadium done in oakland. if you want to go to vegas, that's your thing. >> what i heard was, need more information and maybe it's negotiable. >> and two possible yes votes.

>> at least they are tonight, president biden on the world stage, and queen elizabeth and what she said. her wry wit drawing laughter in world leaders. all of it with the president at the g-7 summit in cornwall, england. the g-7 now pledging to match that. 1 billion doses now. president biden also pressed today about his message to vladimir putin in the coming days. what he said. and the royal welcome for the bidens. and that moment tra tra elizabeth and what she said. tonight, the coronavirus and growing concern about the delta variant. now the dominant strain in the uk and what we're seeing in the