This deal has clearly been a scam from the get-go. Let me get this straight—the owner of a $110 million property (Oakland) is going to loan some guy off the street $60 million and “sell the property” to him? This sounds akin to buying Manhattan with beads or shells. Make this make sense. This is even worse corruption (or at least on par with) than Mayor Sheng Tao’s shenanigans with the recycling company. Oakland Voters, tell your insane City Council no.
This is a HELLO NO DEAL. WHO came up with this idiotic scenario??? Either the buyer has the money and backing, or no deal. And why wouldn’t the city council consider all offers? What’s going on here?
This is completely outrageous…Oakland can’t supposedly afford basic services but somehow can front $60M to a developer who, at best appears incompetent…does this folly ever end?
One is compelled to ask if the Oakland City Council (and the AlCo Bd. of Supes) are getting secretly paid by the MAGA types to create a foil for Trump.
Oakland and Alameda are extending loans (taxpayer money ) to a developer with bad credit history. This raises a question to whom that developer is paying
The highest-risk parts of this deal for the City are yet to come. When the city has to issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure improvements the project needs, and we're depending on a developer who couldn't even come up with the modest purchase installments. We could end up with partially built structures, incomplete remediation, and layers of subcontractor liens. Even if some bonds were issued for the development costs, the city probably wouldn't be on the hook for them, but it adds messiness that could delay finding a replacement developer.
This has scam and swindle written all over it. We approved it initially because it sounded fine and made us feel so good. It's like the swindles that sports facilities often pull on cities that are desperate for a stadium, like we are.
PS
This is nothing like Sheng Tao. All she did was let her boyfriend take a no-show job with the garbage company. Nothing else she did was illegal or even smelly.
I usually respect your reporting, but this entire article was written on a three sentence title that went to the city’s Rules committee for scheduling. The rule committee didn’t “consider” anything. It just scheduled the item to a City Council agenda. And, as noted, this article was written before any of the analysis, term sheet or staff report was even released.
How did this reporter write an entire article not having seen reviewed or read any of the new documents? Now I’m not able to trust your reporting. I know the Oakland report has its biases and political agendas, but this article isn’t reporting. It’s an intentional misrepresentation.
Now that the information has actually been published, it is clear the city is not giving Ray Bobbitt a loan of $60 million. The deal is still an installment plan of payments over time that OAC must pay to the city. The city isn’t giving anyone money. And this time there are far more security mechanisms in place than they were last time. And when the deal closes, the city receives $50 million immediately for the Arena.
And another subtle detail worth noting. Every other City Council action and legislation approving a deal with AASEG came directly from a Council member like Rebecca Kaplan. Not from the administration - no staff analysis no expert review. This is very unusual. This is the first time any legislation having to do with this deal came directly from the administration with the participation of the departments who have expertise in these matters. I think what you’re seeing is an attempt to get a better deal for the city - with actual analysis and negotiation that is resulting in more protections for the city, addressing past flaws in the deal. And getting more out of the deal, including a new perpetual ticket surcharge on events at the Arena that will be a new revenue source for the city
Sam — Thank you for your comment. Our article is accurate and we stand behind it. A loan is a financial arrangement where one party (the lender) provides money or assets to another (the borrower). In this case, the asset is the Coliseum Complex, the city is the lender, and Ray Bobbitt’s company is the borrower. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
You kind of missed the point; the issue is you guys wrote an entire article based on a three sentence agenda item from the Council’s scheduling committee. And made it seem like you had analyzed a term sheet or more aspects of the deal. The article misrepresented what you reviewed. Now that all the materials are out a deeper review can be done, obviously. But doing an entire story based solely on a Rules agenda is not cool. And seemed a bit AI frankly.
After years of lies that no public money would be needed….here we are.
This deal has clearly been a scam from the get-go. Let me get this straight—the owner of a $110 million property (Oakland) is going to loan some guy off the street $60 million and “sell the property” to him? This sounds akin to buying Manhattan with beads or shells. Make this make sense. This is even worse corruption (or at least on par with) than Mayor Sheng Tao’s shenanigans with the recycling company. Oakland Voters, tell your insane City Council no.
This makes no sense on its face. What kind of a deal did the public get? Not even be paid owed debts so much in the dark.
This is a HELLO NO DEAL. WHO came up with this idiotic scenario??? Either the buyer has the money and backing, or no deal. And why wouldn’t the city council consider all offers? What’s going on here?
This is completely outrageous…Oakland can’t supposedly afford basic services but somehow can front $60M to a developer who, at best appears incompetent…does this folly ever end?
Why is the Coliseum not getting the same uproar as Howard Terminal?
One is compelled to ask if the Oakland City Council (and the AlCo Bd. of Supes) are getting secretly paid by the MAGA types to create a foil for Trump.
Sounds so logical - bravo!
We needed to pass Measure E but the city has money for this?
Oakland and Alameda are extending loans (taxpayer money ) to a developer with bad credit history. This raises a question to whom that developer is paying
The highest-risk parts of this deal for the City are yet to come. When the city has to issue bonds to pay for the infrastructure improvements the project needs, and we're depending on a developer who couldn't even come up with the modest purchase installments. We could end up with partially built structures, incomplete remediation, and layers of subcontractor liens. Even if some bonds were issued for the development costs, the city probably wouldn't be on the hook for them, but it adds messiness that could delay finding a replacement developer.
This has scam and swindle written all over it. We approved it initially because it sounded fine and made us feel so good. It's like the swindles that sports facilities often pull on cities that are desperate for a stadium, like we are.
PS
This is nothing like Sheng Tao. All she did was let her boyfriend take a no-show job with the garbage company. Nothing else she did was illegal or even smelly.
Let's go Oak-land!!
I usually respect your reporting, but this entire article was written on a three sentence title that went to the city’s Rules committee for scheduling. The rule committee didn’t “consider” anything. It just scheduled the item to a City Council agenda. And, as noted, this article was written before any of the analysis, term sheet or staff report was even released.
How did this reporter write an entire article not having seen reviewed or read any of the new documents? Now I’m not able to trust your reporting. I know the Oakland report has its biases and political agendas, but this article isn’t reporting. It’s an intentional misrepresentation.
Now that the information has actually been published, it is clear the city is not giving Ray Bobbitt a loan of $60 million. The deal is still an installment plan of payments over time that OAC must pay to the city. The city isn’t giving anyone money. And this time there are far more security mechanisms in place than they were last time. And when the deal closes, the city receives $50 million immediately for the Arena.
And another subtle detail worth noting. Every other City Council action and legislation approving a deal with AASEG came directly from a Council member like Rebecca Kaplan. Not from the administration - no staff analysis no expert review. This is very unusual. This is the first time any legislation having to do with this deal came directly from the administration with the participation of the departments who have expertise in these matters. I think what you’re seeing is an attempt to get a better deal for the city - with actual analysis and negotiation that is resulting in more protections for the city, addressing past flaws in the deal. And getting more out of the deal, including a new perpetual ticket surcharge on events at the Arena that will be a new revenue source for the city
Sam — Thank you for your comment. Our article is accurate and we stand behind it. A loan is a financial arrangement where one party (the lender) provides money or assets to another (the borrower). In this case, the asset is the Coliseum Complex, the city is the lender, and Ray Bobbitt’s company is the borrower. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
You kind of missed the point; the issue is you guys wrote an entire article based on a three sentence agenda item from the Council’s scheduling committee. And made it seem like you had analyzed a term sheet or more aspects of the deal. The article misrepresented what you reviewed. Now that all the materials are out a deeper review can be done, obviously. But doing an entire story based solely on a Rules agenda is not cool. And seemed a bit AI frankly.