As you write, "...Five years later, on July 22, 2025, the county board of supervisors approved a “conditional consent disposition agreement” that appears to be designed for Alameda County to eventually buy back its 50% ownership share from the A’s and then sell it to OAC for $125 million.².."
This agreement was the result of a lengthy public process that got a lot of attention at the time. Why are you intimating that this is a new deal, or a secret deal? Relying on someone else's blog post to shape the perspective of OR on an issue, doesn't seem in keeping with OR"s stated journalistic standards.
Y'all know I appreciate OR's commitment to fact-based objectivity, but you seem to have missed that standard in this piece.
David, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comments in our next Letters to the Editor column.
Our article is reporting on a new event in this matter: today's board of supervisors closed session conference about the proposed Oakland Coliseum real estate transaction. As the title indicates, our Agenda Watch column routinely reports on items of note in upcoming public meeting agendas. Our article is accurate and we stand behind it. Thank you again, your comments and the discussion they prompt are welcomed.
I'm disappointed in this piece. This seems to be a slippage in OR's stated standards.
1) Per your footnote #2:
On May 6, 2025 the City Council adopted an Ordinance authorizing a delay in the City’s sale to OAC to allow a simultaneous conveyance of title by the City and County to OAC by no later than June 30, 2026.
THE CLOSING IS DELAYED. THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT DUE TO CLOSING.
Are there other payments the developer has missed? Please enumerate them.
David, thank you for your comments. We stand behind our article, which is accurate, and will provide additional reporting in our follow-up recap of today's board of supervisor's meeting.
The payments were not made per the agreed-upon payment schedule. The parties may have gone in after the fact to move goal posts and reframe the rhetoric, but according to the record, the payments were not timely made.
Here are a couple of articles out of several that reported on the missed payments:
Newspaper articles - whether ABC, real estate deals, or OR - are NOT primary sources. OR says they stand for data-based info, not regurgitation and of local media.
Are you backing away from primary sources to be a news aggregator w/o fact checking sources?
I think Mr. Peters 1. should disclose his possible conflict of interest in this subject and 2. understand news is ongoing, based on news value not some government agenda.
Further to my previous comment:
As you write, "...Five years later, on July 22, 2025, the county board of supervisors approved a “conditional consent disposition agreement” that appears to be designed for Alameda County to eventually buy back its 50% ownership share from the A’s and then sell it to OAC for $125 million.².."
This agreement was the result of a lengthy public process that got a lot of attention at the time. Why are you intimating that this is a new deal, or a secret deal? Relying on someone else's blog post to shape the perspective of OR on an issue, doesn't seem in keeping with OR"s stated journalistic standards.
Y'all know I appreciate OR's commitment to fact-based objectivity, but you seem to have missed that standard in this piece.
David, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comments in our next Letters to the Editor column.
Our article is reporting on a new event in this matter: today's board of supervisors closed session conference about the proposed Oakland Coliseum real estate transaction. As the title indicates, our Agenda Watch column routinely reports on items of note in upcoming public meeting agendas. Our article is accurate and we stand behind it. Thank you again, your comments and the discussion they prompt are welcomed.
i’d like to submit a more fully formed letter to the editor. Context matters
I'm disappointed in this piece. This seems to be a slippage in OR's stated standards.
1) Per your footnote #2:
On May 6, 2025 the City Council adopted an Ordinance authorizing a delay in the City’s sale to OAC to allow a simultaneous conveyance of title by the City and County to OAC by no later than June 30, 2026.
THE CLOSING IS DELAYED. THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT DUE TO CLOSING.
Are there other payments the developer has missed? Please enumerate them.
If not, please RETRACT, APOLOGIZE, AND CORRECT!
David, thank you for your comments. We stand behind our article, which is accurate, and will provide additional reporting in our follow-up recap of today's board of supervisor's meeting.
The payments were not made per the agreed-upon payment schedule. The parties may have gone in after the fact to move goal posts and reframe the rhetoric, but according to the record, the payments were not timely made.
Here are a couple of articles out of several that reported on the missed payments:
1. "Alameda Co. Board of Supervisors delay approval of Oakland Coliseum sale." ABC 7 News. https://abc7news.com/post/alameda-county-board-supervisors-delay-approval-oakland-coliseum-sale/15541600/
2. "Oakland Coliseum redeveloper misses $10M down payment deadline." The Real Deal Real Estate News. https://therealdeal.com/san-francisco/2024/10/03/oakland-coliseum-redeveloper-misses-10m-down-payment/
Thanks again for your comments— they, and you are appreciated.
Newspaper articles - whether ABC, real estate deals, or OR - are NOT primary sources. OR says they stand for data-based info, not regurgitation and of local media.
Are you backing away from primary sources to be a news aggregator w/o fact checking sources?
That would be a BIG delta….
I think Mr. Peters 1. should disclose his possible conflict of interest in this subject and 2. understand news is ongoing, based on news value not some government agenda.
I don’t follow. Please say more to help me more fully understand your point.
Thanks