Post by TheShadow on Nov 15, 2005 12:26:00 GMT -5
www.contracostatimes.com
By Guy Ashley
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
OAKLAND - An agreement to abolish personal seat licenses required of
Oakland Raiders' season ticket holders is being touted as the
cornerstone of a peace pact between the football team and the elected
leaders of Oakland and Alameda County.
But not every elected official for the city and county is ready to say
peace is at hand.
Some members of the Oakland City Council and Alameda County Board of
Supervisors are urging colleagues to be cautious. Taxpayers could still
be on the hook for a large chunk of the remaining $182.3 million in debt
related to the Raiders' return to Oakland in 1995.
"I just want to make sure we're not getting out of one bad deal by
making another one," said county Supervisor Scott Haggerty.
A majority of the council and supervisors approved the deal in concept
on Nov. 1, and thus gave the green light for the next day's public
announcement that the PSLs were being abolished and 17 other points of
legal dispute settled.
But sizable minorities of each panel -- two of five county supervisors
and three out of eight City Council members -- have refused to bless the
deal so far, making it less than certain that the pact will be approved
in its final form next month.
Haggerty, Supervisor Keith Carson and city Councilwoman Desley Brooks
say they need to review the deal's details before deciding if it's good
for taxpayers. They complain that the information they have been
supplied so far has been disturbingly scant.
"Given the history of the parties involved, I'm not willing to agree to
anything in concept," Haggerty said, noting that lawyers are now working
to transform the deal's main points into a final contract. "When the
lawyers get a hold of something like this is when I get concerned."
Brooks said she was disturbed by the rushed manner in which the deal was
presented to the City Council in closed session. Most council members,
she said, had not seen the main points until the meeting at which they
were asked to sign off on them.
The urgency, she said, appeared to be driven by a press conference that
was scheduled for the following day.
"That disturbs me," she said. "Especially in light of the
multi-million-dollar losses to the city and county because the last time
(they signed a deal with the Raiders) they rushed and didn't think it
all through."
City and county officials have been under fire for the past decade for
approving the deal that returned the Raiders to Oakland after 13 seasons
in Los Angeles.
The pact, which hinged on $200 million in publicly financed renovations
of McAfee Coliseum, was promoted as one that would pay for itself. But,
largely due to poor season ticket sales, the deal backfired: Taxpayers
have so far spent an estimated $152 million to subsidize annual debt
payments and to fight the Raiders in court over who was at fault for the
sluggish fan response.
Both Haggerty and Brooks said they were disappointed the new deal with
the Raiders left a significant dispute unsettled -- the $34.3 million
verdict the team won in 2003 in its lawsuit against the city-county
panel that runs the Coliseum. The verdict, reached after a five-month
trial in Sacramento, is being appealed in court by both the Raiders and
the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority.
"I don't think we can say we've truly settled our differences, that
we're finally on the same page, if we're still going to be litigating in
court over that verdict," Haggerty said.
Officials close to the talks said concerns expressed by Haggerty and
other elected leaders about the need for a "global settlement" that
includes the $34.3 million judgment brought the Raiders and the
Authority back to the negotiating table last week, sooner than expected.
Officials said they are optimistic such a settlement can be reached at
minimal additional cost to taxpayers. They pin these hopes on the belief
that insurance policies held by the Authority in 1995 will cover a
significant part of the $34.3 million judgment.
The pact announced Nov. 2 calls for the elimination of the PSL -- a fee
of $250 to $4,000 that gave a Raiders fan the right to purchase a season
ticket for 10 years -- and overhaul of the financial relationship
between the football team and its public-sector partners.
The deal is intended to soothe hard feelings of fans who resented the
need to pay twice to attend games and would eliminate a ticketing scheme
the team felt impeded its ability to fill the Coliseum for Raiders games.
But the accord comes with some risks. By eliminating the PSLs, officials
are removing what had been the primary mechanism to recoup $200 million
in public cash spent to renovate the Coliseum.
The big question is whether the re-jiggered financial relationship --
which would bring the city and county larger shares of parking and
concessions revenues from Raiders games -- will be enough to reduce the
outflow of public funds.
Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente said he believes the
pact will improve the city and county's financial situations -- though
he admitted taxpayers will still be stuck with paying off a significant
portion of these debts over the next two decades.
"I would love to have other alternatives,'' he said. "But we don't.''