Jan 10, 2011, 10:59 AM EST
On Friday the San Jose Redevelopment Agency moved to sell five city-owned parcels of land, the proceeds for which would be used to buy land needed to build a downtown ballpark for the A’s. The move would raise $25 million or so. The Agency has already spent about $25 million on getting the land together on which Lew Wolff wants to build a ballpark.
Only problem: new California Governor Jerry Brown — whose aura smiles and never frowns — may propose today that all municipal redevelopment agencies will be abolished in an effort to fix California’s massive budget problems. This wouldn’t take land away from the city, of course, but it would take away the entities that handle such sales, so that would likely complicate everything. If that happened, normal government employees instead of real estate redevelopment experts would have to do all of this, and they can barely dress themselves in the morning. Or at least that’s what I hear on the talk radio.
In other news, it’s been nearly two years since Bud Selig appointed a commission to study the matter of the A’s moving to San Jose. I expect that he’ll soon announce a second commission, the purpose of which is to go out and search for the first commission.
- Merry Christmas from HBT! 74
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 86
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 40
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 15
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 120
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Curt Schilling goes after Obama, says Ronald Reagan would watch “The Interview” (187)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (120)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (96)
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year (86)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)