‘Oakland deserves better’ — Alameda County approves Coliseum buyback term sheet
Developer Ray Bobbitt sought to ‘carve out’ the Oakland Arena from liability for environmental cleanup, but the supervisors rejected his changes.
Video clip 1: “Oakland deserves better.” Supervisor Elisa Márquez calls developer Ray Bobbitt’s eleventh-hour proposal to avoid liability for environmental issues “unconscionable” ahead of the board rejecting his proposal. The board approved the term sheet as originally proposed. May 28, 2026. (Source: County of Alameda.)
Oakland Recap provides summaries of public meeting proceedings that catch our attention. In this installment, we review the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ approval of a term sheet to buy back 50 percent interest in the Oakland Coliseum Complex from the Athletics baseball franchise, then sell it to developer Ray Bobbitt’s company, African-American Sports Entertainment Group.
“Oakland deserves better… People are going to make billions of dollars off this transaction, and… we know that there’s a liability. We’re going to say, that’s okay, you don’t have to even give us a penny for it? It’s unconscionable.”
— Supervisor Elisa Márquez, moving to adopt the term sheet without the developer’s requested carve out to remove environmental liability for an unnamed Oakland Arena buyer.
Developer Ray Bobbitt, in a last-minute change, sought to avoid liability for environmental contamination at the Oakland Arena
Yesterday the Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to accept a non-binding term sheet that lays out a deal for the county to buy back a 50 percent interest in the Oakland Coliseum complex from the Athletics (A’s), then sell it to developer Ray Bobbitt’s company, African-American Sports Entertainment Group (AASEG).1
Under the proposed term sheet, the county would pay $115 million in cash to the A’s affiliate that bought the county’s stake in 2019. The county would then be repaid the same $115 million by the developer, AASEG, through its affiliate over five to seven years at 5% compounding interest.2
The developer would then sell the indoor Oakland Arena (not the outdoor Coliseum stadium or the surrounding parking lots) to an unidentified third-party buyer for at least $100 million. Recent news reports say that the buyer is the Oak View Group.3
AASEG is also under a separate contract to buy the City of Oakland’s 50 percent interest in the Coliseum Complex.
AASEG has missed or delayed nearly every major payment owed to the city since the city’s deal was signed in 2024.4
During the staff presentation at the outset of the meeting, supervisors David Haubert and Nate Miley seemed inclined to consider Bobbitt’s proposals to shield the Oakland Arena from liability for potentially expensive environmental cleanup at the site. (Later in the meeting, they appeared to change course.)
Per the county term sheet approved by the board, AASEG is not required to provide collateral or a certificate of credit for the transaction. AASEG would be required to maintain only $30 million in enterprise value during the entire repayment period. The county would convey its interest “as is,” with AASEG waiving the right to sue the county over environmental or other property conditions.
State cleanup records show that soil and groundwater at the Coliseum site are contaminated with industrial solvents at concentrations exceeding human health risk thresholds and requiring hotspot excavation, in-situ groundwater treatment, an asphalt cap, and a recorded land-use covenant.5678
No public dollar estimate for cleaning up the full 112-acre complex has been released, but the liability is consequential enough — potentially tens of millions of dollars or more — that the county’s sale to AASEG would be conditioned on the developer releasing the county from “any costs related to hazardous waste and environmental remediation.”
Video clip 2. Developer Ray Bobbitt defends his proposal to avoid environmental liability by stating, “We have people that I was in middle school with that are living in tents and feces with no running water, with no electricity. We drive through East Oakland and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.” May 28, 2026. (Source: County of Alameda)
Developer Ray Bobbitt evokes ‘people… living in tents and feces’ in a bid to avoid liability for environmental issues for the unnamed Oakland Arena buyer
Supervisor Elisa Márquez objected to Bobbitt’s proposal, calling it “unconscionable” and stating that “People are going to make billions of dollars off this transaction, and we know that there’s a liability. We’re going to say, that’s okay, you don’t have to even give us a penny for it?”
(A video of Márquez’s remarks is at the top of this article.)
Márquez then scolded supervisor Haubert for calling Bobbitt back up to speak for a third time to respond, in excess of the time limits given to other speakers.
“You’re like, showing all our cards and we’re at a huge disadvantage by this process, and you’re making it worse”
– Supervisor Elisa Márquez to supervisor David Haubert, May 28, 2026
In response, Bobbitt noted that the project has broad support from influential members of the community, and also evoked “people… living in tents and feces” in East Oakland.
“I do want to just clarify for the record, this is a community-driven process and at the end of the day, we have people that I was in middle school with that are living in tents and feces with no running water, with no electricity. We drive through East Oakland and we should all be ashamed of ourselves. So there’s nothing more urgent than this process for me personally, as a person who was a visionary, to come through this, and for a person who was born and raised here and wants to see impact.”
— Developer Ray Bobbitt, defending his last-minute proposal to shield the Oakland Arena from liability for environmental cleanup, May 28, 2026
Video clip 3. Supervisor Nate Miley offers a ‘teachable moment,’ stating, “We’ve lost three teams... Why? Failure of leadership and poor decisions. That’s why we’ve lost three teams.” May 28, 2026. (Source: County of Alameda)
Supervisor Nate Miley blames the city of Oakland for ‘failed leadership’ and becomes emotional as he offers a ‘teachable moment’
Supervisor Miley appeared to become frustrated and emotional in his comments, emphasizing his long association with the Coliseum site going back to his days as an Oakland city council member in the 1990s and during his 26-year tenure on the board of supervisors.
Miley blamed an unnamed former Oakland mayor for losing Oakland’s major sports teams and entangling the Coliseum Complex in a complicated ownership structure.
“We’ve lost three teams... Why? Failure of leadership and poor decisions. That’s why we’ve lost three teams. I was on the city council when we brought back the Oakland [Raiders]. Henry Gardner was the city manager when we negotiated that deal…
“We’d still have the Oakland A’s here, but for a former mayor, and I’m not going to use the mayor’s name, fired the Black city manager, Robert Bobb, who wanted to build a downtown stadium for the Oakland A’s. Had that happened, we would have had the Oakland A’s playing downtown right now. Had that happened, the Raiders would still probably be playing at the Coliseum right now.
“This county... I’ve dealt with mayors... this county offered to sell our interest to the city so that it could be under one uniform ownership. No, the city didn’t take our deal. We’ve offered to buy the city’s interest. No, the city didn’t take our deal to put the property under one one ownership. It didn’t happen.”
– Supervisor Nate Miley, May 28, 2026
Miley also noted his long association with Ray Bobbitt and his family over the years.
“We are here now with a developing team, an owner... potential ownership team that’s primarily African-American, that’s got the resources to make this happen. That would be extremely beneficial for East Oakland, the city of Oakland and the entire county and region.
“That’s why I stand behind this term sheet… I’ve often said, let’s not, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of the good. And this is not perfect, but it is good…
“And I know, I know Ray Bobbitt. I’ve worked with Ray and his family over the years. I know many of you. I’ve worked with many of you over the years, so, but I’m not representing [AASEG]. I’m representing the county, and I’m obligated to represent the county.”
– Supervisor Nate Miley, May 28, 2026
Don’t miss a beat. Donate to support our nonprofit work.
A who’s-who of public speakers
Board president Haubert allowed three public speakers extra time to address the board, beyond the one-minute time limit established for other speakers:
Oakland city council member Ken Houston
Developer Ray Bobbitt
Former Oakland city manager Henry Gardner.
Other public speakers included trade labor representatives, business operators, and some community groups — all supportive of the proposal, of AASEG and of Ray Bobbitt personally.
During the comments, Bobbitt looked on from the front row, seated next to the speaker’s podium.
A transcript and video of the board discussion is below.
Read this related article:
Transcript
DEVELOPER RAY BOBBITT:
So first of all, I want to apologize to this board.
Tuesday, when we didn’t vote, I was just really frustrated. And I was... because we... it’s so... it’s just... it’s heartfelt that people from this community will react this quickly. Like, in 48 hours, we had almost 100 people here, just in 48 hours.
And then today, the same people take time off work, come and be here, so I didn’t... I just want to tell you, you guys have worked tremendously. This board has worked tremendously. The staff has worked tremendously. We appreciate you.
And so I just wanted to first of all, you know, apologize.
But secondly, thank you for the work and the time that you’ve put in. This is really important to our community.
I’ve said it all before, but we just want to say how grateful we are to be at this position, and we can change history and change... and move into a new chapter of this site. So thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR DAVID HAUBERT:
[Calling Bobbitt back to the public speaker’s podium.] Mr. Bobbitt.
Thank you for your public comments. I have to ask you: there could be competing opportunities. We’ve discussed them.
One, the term sheet that’s on the agenda posted excludes the carve out [to exclude the Arena buyer from environmental liability]. The request that we received from your team last night and reaffirmed even this morning includes the carve out.
If this board takes action on the terms that have been agendized and published, excluding the carve out, and instead, as I think I heard mentioned, discuss the carve out, or discuss the handling of the environmental risks and responsibilities for a later time, puts that off to discussions with the Arena buyer and our staff…
Would you... what does that do to the deal?
RAY BOBBITT:
Well, well, the reason why there’s a carve out is because we understand how critical the Arena is.
It is like if you bought a strip mall. You would have to want an anchor.
And if you go into the strip mall and you have a Safeway there, you’re really in a strong position. You know, you could have Mailbox Etc., Panera Bread, but if you have a Safeway and a Starbucks, you’re in really good position with respect to an anchor.
The Arena represents an anchor of the site. The Arena represents the ability to upgrade and be competitive, and potentially fight off competition from Chase Center, which is brand new.
It’s an opportunity for upgrades. It’s an opportunity to really set the tone with respect to bringing in that situation.
This Arena — there was this SFGate article the other day that said it’s become a pop culture mecca, and it’s excellent. And the opportunity to enhance that and expand that is critical to the overall process.
So obviously, one of the reasons why that was submitted is because we don’t want to be in a position where we lose momentum, to create an anchor, and to make sure our anchor is strengthened.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Is there a risk then to the anchor, if we refuse what you requested, the carve out, and instead approve the terms without the carve out? Is there a risk to the Arena deal?
RAY BOBBITT:
Well, we... we have, as you know, we’re communicating with multiple entities. And, but it does create more complication because, as you know, the environmental impact of the site — if it was a carve out for just the Arena.
I think you said it’s eight acres. The entire site is 112 acres. So the 112 acres, minus eight.
So the under 104 acres would not be subjected to this carve out, would not be subjected. So the other 104 acres would have the same impact and the same process that we’ve sort of surrendered through, where the previous disposition agreement, the county was fully responsible.
DAVID HAUBERT:
So is there risk to the Arena deal or not?
And related to that, is there a time consideration? Is it expected to delay things?
RAY BOBBITT:
I think it’s a time consideration more than anything because we’ve been doing this, as you know, for five years, but because we’re from here, we’re never going to walk away.
I mean, we’re, we are from here. And so this is our soil. And so we’ve used perseverance, patience and persistence to be here.
But it’s been a long time. And as I started with, it was frustrating to know that we weren’t voting Tuesday.
But every second, every day that clicks off, we have some very tight timelines. It would be very helpful if that was to happen today because it, you know, I can’t say with certainty, but I could say it definitely would potentially create timing risks with respect to our project.
DAVID HAUBERT:
That’s what I’m trying to ascertain.
RAY BOBBITT:
Yes.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Thank you. Next speaker.
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER KEN HOUSTON:
Good morning. Supervisor Márquez, Supervisor Haubert, Bas, and my fearless leader, Supervisor Nate Miley.
Ken Houston, son of Oakland. I’m standing here in a real complicated position. Not only that, I am a born and raised third generation — like my brother Jesse and I played in those fields [before the Coliseum was built].
I sit on the JPA [the Coliseum Joint Powers Agreement between the city and county].
I’m a community advocate. I’m a long life resident, third generation, and now I am one of the council members. I represent this district and I represent the Hegenberger corridor, which I want to turn into a world class destination.
I have an electoral obligation, it’s very, very complicated, just like yours is, to represent the best interests… [timer runs out]. And I want to see if I have the privilege here of speaking long to have the privilege, president.
DAVID HAUBERT:
I’m sorry, I can’t. The point is, and our county council has already told us, if I let one go along, I gotta let all go long.
KEN HOUSTON:
Do they do the same thing that I do?
DAVID HAUBERT:
I guess? Yeah. I would ask... [looks over to county counsel Andrea Weddle].
No, no, no we don’t. Yeah, we don’t do that either.
But, but I do want to say, since I’m interested to hear what else you have to say, I would invite you to continue.
I’m not granting you extra time. I’m asking you what else you have to say.
KEN HOUSTON:
Yes, thank you.
This project for East Oakland and for the Hegenberger corridor is unimaginable. My district 7 has been underserved for generations. Right? And this will bring vitality.
However, at the same time, it has to make sense for the city and the county and for the people of Oakland.
And, like I said on the JPA, and I spoke to [former Oakland city manager] Henry Gardner this morning, and I’m the one that put his name on there [the speaker’s list], because he had said something about, that it put the JPA in jeopardy.
I sit on the JPA, I really didn’t understand what he was saying. Right? And he’s one of the people I listen to.
I have an electoral obligation, supervisors, to do the right thing for my constituents, to do right thing for my community and do the right thing for this development. So I want this to move forward.
However, it has to be in the best interests of the city and the county, and this has to be... it’s very complicated. I did not know this was that complicated. Right?
So, they’ve been here for five years working it. It has to make sense and it has to go together. That’s what I’m saying. It has to, because it’s coming to us. Thank you.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Thank you. That’s awesome.
[...]
FORMER OAKLAND CITY MANAGER HENRY GARDNER:
Honorable president and members of the board. I thought I heard a variation of my name called as a speaker.
For the record, I did not sign up to speak.
I had no intentions of speaking. But since my name has been mentioned and my comments mischaracterized, I want the record to show that what I said and what I continue to say is this is an enormously complicated transaction.
I have been around, as some of you know, for more than a few years, and the only thing that comes close in complexity is the sale and leaseback of Oakland City Hall.
I have no comments on the term sheet. I will share those with the staff. I do have some concerns, but since I’ve been asked to make a comment, I do have a recommendation. [Timer runs out.]
DAVID HAUBERT:
Since your time is up, I would respectfully ask for you to make that recommendation.
HENRY GARDNER:
I recommend that the board make a wise decision. Thank you.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Thank you, Mr. Gardner.
RAY BOBBITT:
I just wanted to reinforce that as I was speaking, my phone was going off and the... our board was saying that it would... a delay of the carve out would absolutely impact our situation tremendously.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Thank you. There are no more speakers. No more speakers. Okay, so, bring it back for deliberation and discussion.
SUPERVISOR ELISA MÁRQUEZ:
I’m ready to make a motion.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Yeah. Well, if you make a motion, we can have a substitute motion also. So, um, I... go ahead and make the motion. We’ll discuss it.
ELISA MÁRQUEZ:
So I move that we adopt the non-binding term sheet as is because this continues the conversation.
My goal is to get the best deal possible for our community. Quite frankly, I’m offended that we want to be short sighted on health and safety.
Oakland and the entire region deserves better. We could do better.
People are going to make billions of dollars off this transaction, and the fact that we’re going to... we know that there’s a liability, we’re going to say, that’s okay, you don’t have to even give us a penny for it? It’s unconscionable.
NATE MILEY:
I’d like to second the motion and speak to it when it’s appropriate.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Very good.
The motion is to accept the terms as presented, excluding the carve out and as presented, which excludes the... excludes the requested carve out, noting that it’s a non-binding term sheet and terms can always be discussed going forward.
It’s been pointed out that that could affect the deal timing, which we’ve been at this for nine years. But what’s a little more time? And it has been pointed out that that may risk the deal.
And that said, if there’s nothing else to say, from OAC [Oakland Acquisition Company / Ray Bobbitt], you’ve said what you’ve said.
I just wanted to make clear we’re about to vote on the terms as published without a carve out. I could make another motion to accept a substitute motion or another motion rather to accept the terms that OAC has requested, which includes the carve out. If we vote for that one.
Again, it’s a non-binding term sheet, and terms can continue to be changed since it’s non-binding. But I just don’t know that, that that’s going to get us anywhere. So I think we’re going to end up just voting on the motion that’s been made. But I invite OAC to make more comments on this particular topic, and then supervisor...
[Inaudible comments from Supervisor Márquez]
I believe that if I have questions of a member of the public that’s making comment that I can ask those questions, is that not correct?
INTERIM COUNTY COUNSEL ANDREA WEDDLE:
You may, but you cannot invite them to speak again, because they have already spoken twice.
DAVID HAUBERT:
I’m just going to ask, well, I’ve asked him to come and explain the implications of this vote on their deal.
[Inaudible comments from Supervisor Márquez]
I, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say to me, Supervisor Márquez. It’s my right to ask him again. Maybe he’s got more information…
ELISA MÁRQUEZ:
You’re like, showing all our cards and we’re at a huge disadvantage by this process, and you’re making it worse.
DAVID HAUBERT:
I disagree.
RAY BOBBITT:
I won’t say anything more than was already said.
I do want to just clarify for the record, this is a community driven process and at the end of the day, we have people that I was in middle school with that are living in tents and feces with no running water, with no electricity.
We drive through East Oakland and we should all be ashamed of ourselves. So there’s nothing more urgent than this process for me personally, as a person who was a visionary, to come through this, and for a person who was born and raised here and wants to see impact.
So all I’m saying is, I won’t comment anymore. I just wanted to make sure that the comments that are made with respect to our process are clear, and that’s, I just wanted to say that.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Miley, you wanted to make some comments before we vote?
SUPERVISOR NATE MILEY:
Yes, on the motion.
First of all, you know, I’ve been very clear, what the board does has to be legally sound.
It has to pass the smell test. It has to pass all scrutiny, and we have to negotiate as fiduciaries of the county.
I don’t represent OAC. I don’t represent the city. I represent Alameda County. And that’s my obligation.
It has to pass the smell test. And if it doesn’t, then we will be responsible for carrying that burden.
I think the motion is a strong motion because it doesn’t preclude further negotiation. It’s a non-binding... it’s not a binding term sheet. It’s non-binding. It doesn’t preclude negotiation.
We still know there’s issues around the environmental. That’s the big bugaboo based on, I think, the terms. That’s got to be reconciled. The county has had no conversations with the city about this, no conversations with the Arena buyer about this. And the county is still in the position of being part owner of the facility.
So, and, you know, we’ve sold our interest, but it’s subject to all these other terms being met, before we can turn over the deed to CWP [Coliseum Way Partners] or the Oakland A’s.
So I think sticking with the terms that we’ve come up with puts the county in the best prudent position to continue any negotiations with the city, OAC, and the Arena buyer.
Now, let me use this as a teachable moment.
Someone who’s been on the city council, 1990, someone who’s been a board county supervisor, 2000 to present. Let me use this as a teachable moment.
We’ve lost three teams. No one contemplated losing three teams. We’ve lost three teams. Why? Failure of leadership and poor decisions. That’s why we’ve lost three teams.
I was on the city council when we brought back the Oakland A’s [Raiders]. Henry Gardner was the city manager when we negotiated that deal, we would still have, excuse me, the Raiders, we brought the Raiders back.
We’d still have the Oakland A’s here, but for a former mayor, and I’m not going to use the mayor’s name, fire the Black city manager, Robert Bobb, who wanted to build a downtown stadium for the Oakland A’s. Had that happened, we would have had the Oakland A’s playing downtown right now. Had that happened, the Raiders would still probably be playing at the Coliseum right now.
But all that’s water under the bridge.
This county... I’ve dealt with mayors... this county offered to sell our interest to the city so that it could be under one uniform ownership. No, the city didn’t take our deal.
We’ve offered to buy the city’s interest. No, the city didn’t take our deal to put the property under one one ownership. It didn’t happen.
We are here now with a developing team, an owner... potential ownership team that’s primarily African-American, that’s got the resources to make this happen. That would be extremely beneficial for East Oakland, the city of Oakland and the entire county and region. That’s why I stand behind this term sheet.
I tried to point out, when I went through various aspects of the term sheet, why I thought this was a good, nonbinding term sheet for us to have. I’ve often said, let’s not, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of the good. And this is not perfect, but it is good.
It’s good because we get rid of the lawsuit. It’s good because the county, I hope, ultimately ends up with more money. When we do $115 [million] and we get $115 [million] back over the course of time.
It’s good because an African-American team takes ownership of the property and they’ve got a lot of potential in terms of what they want to do with the property in the future. That benefits East Oakland and the city of Oakland and everyone else. It gets the county out of the damn sports business so we can concentrate on safety net services.
Márquez, Supervisor Márquez asked how many hours have gone into this? County Counsel went back to 2017. Trust me, I, um... If you want, I can go back to the time I was on the city council. Talk about hours? Talk about frustration? Oh, don’t get me started. Don’t get me started.
So I’m using this as a teachable moment for all of you. That this is... everyone’s comments mentioned, this has been very complicated and I want to see this happen, but it’s got to happen the right way.
I don’t think OAC can walk away from this if we do a non-binding term sheet today. It still allows us further opportunity to negotiate around the environmental.
So, sorry to get a little emotional about this, but hey, I’ve lived this since 1990, let’s say, but easily since 2000.
And I know, I know Ray Bobbitt. I’ve worked with Ray and his family over the years. I know many of you. I’ve worked with many of you over the years, so, but I’m not representing OAC. I’m representing the county, and I’m obligated to represent the county.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Supervisor, thank you for that.
I’m also supportive of this motion, knowing that indeed continued discussions will have happened.
What I have a problem with is it will simply delay things. I don’t know what will change, if anything, but I am hopeful that a resolution can be made.
I think a few phone calls back and forth might be able to resolve this.
I hope that it’s done expeditiously because, as you’ve said, we have many more steps to go through.
As we’ve heard the community say, we have a ton of... this has taken a long time and people are suffering and need to see this move forward. So let’s get this done.
If we take this action today, there will be still more discussions that have to happen. But we’re making progress.
I would say I agree with you: don’t let good be the enemy of perfect or perfect be the enemy of good. I think that the proposal they made is also good, but maybe it can get better. It’ll just take more time.
So with that said, I’m supportive.
I think Supervisor Bas, you want to make a comment. Supervisor Tam, you can chime in if you want. I know you came late, but you can chime in too. Supervisor Bas.
SUPERVISOR NIKKI FORTUNATO BAS:
Thank you, President Haubert.
I just want to let the community know where I stand. I shared some of this on Tuesday. But I think it’s important to understand who are the community’s best partners, who has our interests at heart.
And I have to say, from my experience here and in the city, you know, it is... it’s it’s, it’s clear who does real community engagement and who builds the relationships and trust.
Back in 2021, the city went through a process while I was there to award the exclusive negotiating agreement for the Coliseum Complex to AASEG [African-American Sports Entertainment Group / Ray Bobbitt] because of its commitment to community engagement.
And I think you all have done incredible community engagement, built relationships, and made some commitments as well. And I, I hope that will continue and that will follow through with...
I completely agree with what people said about the importance of economically revitalizing East Oakland and by extension, Oakland and Alameda County, that the vision that has been put forward creates incredible opportunity and hope.
I think having an active, competitive partner running the Arena could be game changing for us. And we stand to gain in terms of more jobs, more opportunity, more entertainment, and a larger tax base. And all of that will improve community safety. So there’s definitely a lot to be gained.
I do want to, also say, somewhat in line with my colleague’s comments, Supervisor Miley, that we do have to make the best decision possible safeguarding our assets as county supervisors.
We are going to have a budget presentation shortly. And for those of you who don’t know, we are working to close a $91 million deficit.
We are also, myself and Supervisor Miley, we’re meeting very actively with Alameda Health Systems, our public hospital system, to address their projected $100 million deficit.
We are dealing with residents who are losing their health care, residents who are losing their food assistance, people who have severe mental illnesses, who are justice involved, who are running out of resources.
The list really does go on in terms of how we need to ensure that we have the resources and we limit our liability, to protect our resources, to continue to be a strong safety net. If we are not that safety net to our residents, what you see in East Oakland is only going to get worse.
And so for me personally, I am trying to balance the real opportunity that I believe in, with safeguarding our resources and knowing that under this current federal administration, so much is under attack.
And I want to make sure that people don’t lose those basic rights to health care, food, housing, etc. So this is a huge decision. And we’re trying to balance a lot of interests here, and I’m glad that people are coming to understand that. Thank you.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Supervisor Tam. Anything to add?
SUPERVISOR LENA TAM:
I’m going to ditto what Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Fortunato Bas just said.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Okay, very good. With that said, a motion has been made and seconded.
Roll call vote, please.
COUNTY CLERK:
Supervisor Márquez? (Aye.)
Supervisor Tam? (Aye.)
Supervisor Miley? (Aye.)
Supervisor Fortunato Bas? (Aye.)
President Haubert?
DAVID HAUBERT:
I vote yes. With that the motion passes. We’ve, uh, concluded that meeting.
Before we end the meeting, I would just like to say that, we’re left now with our negotiating team, Supervisor Miley and I being an observer to that, working expeditiously with OAC to, um, progress.
Is that correct? Do we have a timeline for that?
ANDREA WEDDLE:
Well, the document that you just approved, projects a closing by June 30th.
DAVID HAUBERT:
Okay, good. Good luck. Good luck, everybody.
With that the meeting is over, and I’ll let that room clear out for five minutes, while we start our next meeting.
[END]
WE ARE 100% SUPPORTED BY YOU
Oakland Report provides accurate, unflinching, data-driven reporting and analysis that you will find nowhere else. If you value our work, please donate. All contributions go directly to sustaining and growing our 501(c)(3) nonprofit work:
County of Alameda. “Approve a non-binding term sheet setting forth terms for renegotiation of the conditional consent to assignment of the disposition agreement among the County of Alameda, Coliseum Way Partners, LLC, and Oakland Acquisition Company, LLC (OAC) and the second amendment to the disposition agreement with OAC for the sale of the County’s half undivided interest in the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex (7000 Coliseum Way, Oakland, CA; APNs 41-3901-8 and 41-3901-9).” Board of Supervisors special meeting agenda, May 28, 2026. https://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_22852b4152ce6fa9b481a7de97b3aa35.pdf&view=1
County of Alameda. “Non-binding term sheet — Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex transaction.” Board of Supervisors special meeting agenda, attachment 1. May 28, 2026. https://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaReg_05_28_26%20Spmtg/GENERAL%20ADMINISTRATION/Regular%20Calendar/County_Term_Sheet_Final.pdf
Talerico, Kate. “Private equity-backed developer in talks to buy Oakland Arena from community group in Coliseum deal.” San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2026. https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/private-equity-buyer-oakland-arena-22274221.php; https://archive.is/5LxtY
Scott, Seneca. “Alameda County is back in the Oakland Coliseum business — set to buy back from A’s, sell to developer.” Oakland Report, May 28, 2026. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/alameda-county-is-back-in-the-coliseum-business
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Union Pacific Oakland Coliseum Site Removal Action Workplan (RAW).” Notice of Exemption, SCH No. 2018118561, Nov. 29, 2018. https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2018118561
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Union Pacific Oakland Coliseum Site Removal Action Workplan (RAW).” Notice of Exemption, State Clearinghouse No. 2018118453, Nov. 27, 2018. https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2018118453
City of Oakland. “Coliseum Area Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume II — Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.” State Clearinghouse No. 2013042066, City Case No. ER13-0004, Aug. 2014. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/DEIR-Volume-2.pdf
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. “Adoption of Site Cleanup Requirements Order No. R2-2022-0032 for Union Pacific Railroad and City of Oakland, Arroyo Viejo Creek Channel, Oakland, Alameda County.” Order No. R2-2022-0032, Oct. 14, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2022/R2-2022-0032.pdf
Why do I feel like this deal is either never going to happen, or will become the biggest quagmire of non-payments and no development?
Anyone familar with that area knows that ground contamination was always one of the elephants in the living room. Why is it just coming up now publicly?