Nevius: Despite vote, A’s stadium push won’t get any easier in Oakland

The Oakland A’s faced another do-or-die vote by a commission on their proposed waterfront ballpark and development this week.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission had to vote, by a two-thirds margin, for the Howard Terminal project to go forward. In the end, they did better than that, in a landslide 23-2 decision.

A’s supporters were giddy, but if you missed the excitement, no worries. There will surely be plenty more votes coming up, from the Department of Toxic Substances Control to the Oakland City Council, which has ordered a fresh shipment of sand to throw in the gears to slow things down.

If this were a reality dating show, someone would pull the A’s to the side and say, “Dude, they’re just not into you.”

The project has remarkable potential. In addition to a billion-dollar ballpark, there will be shops and stores, a 3,500-seat performance space and affordable housing — a $12 billion investment in all.

If built, it could revitalize the Jack London Square area and provide a new urban core. Not to mention millions in tax revenue. Also, as happened when San Francisco put its ballpark on the water, it would provide Oakland with a showcase waterfront that is blimp-ready for national television glamour shots.

And Oakland has basically looked at all that and said:

Nah. We’re good.

Opponents of the site are active and well-funded. Almost every day I get an email from the East Oakland Stadium Alliance. They include videos, news stories dinging the project and passionate arguments against it.

There is talk of “losing the Port of Oakland” and some 90,000 jobs. Farmers warn that the food chain will be disrupted. One Fresno farm representative said melodramatically, “Without food, no one lives.”

Besides, the alliance says, there’s a simple solution. All the city has to do is tell A’s owner John Fisher to build his new ballpark where the old one stands now, out next to the freeway, with easy access to BART, too.

Bay Area media are solidly against the new project. They rail against Fisher as a lousy owner — he is, but we heard you the first four times you wrote that — and insist they are baffled why the team won’t rebuild on the Coliseum site.

All of which could be pretty convincing.

If true.

First, take a look at the members of the Stadium Alliance. They are longshoremen’s unions, trucking associations, shipping companies and a large Portland-based scrap metal recycling company. They don’t want new housing, retail or a fancy ballpark. They want to keep it industrial.

Which is fine. That’s where they work.

But no one is shutting down the Port of Oakland. Or firing 90,000 people. The 56 acres the proposed project would cover (less than 5% of the 1,300-acre port) is currently designated “a truck staging area.”

So it’s a parking lot.

The alliance warns if the lot is taken away, some 2,000 trucks a day will be traveling through the nearby neighborhood.

But how’d those trucks get there in the first place? Unless A’s President Dave Kaval can extend his gondola project to carrying big rig trucks, they’re going to still be driving through the neighborhood.

Howard Terminal, by the way, doesn’t load or unload ships. It’s a staging area for cargo. Farmers do have a gripe because they need refrigeration near where they load.

Fair point and that needs to be addressed.

But that’s a far cry from cutting off food delivery to the point that people go hungry.

Meanwhile, the fantasy of the A’s building at the Coliseum site won’t die.

After all, it is sooooo convenient. Next to the freeway, right on the BART line.

Yep. It is so convenient that sometimes 4,000-5,000 people show up for games.

And go ahead and rail against Fisher and the lousy ballpark if you must. But these games still feature big league players and teams. Over 36,000 showed up last week to see the A’s host the Yankees.

Regular games that don’t include Aaron Judge or a fireworks display don’t draw. The Warriors left the site, the Raiders left the site and it continues to be an industrial area with the cultural character of ... well, an industrial recycling center.

Second, telling Fisher where he has to put his ballpark sounds like a dandy idea.

But it runs into two problems:

First, it’s his money (he’s putting up the $1 billion for the ballpark and the overall project.)

And second, he doesn’t want to. No amount of jumping up and down and telling Fisher he’s wrong matters. His money, his site.

As for being a lousy owner, that’s been well established. The cynicism of finding good young players, letting them blossom under rookie contracts and then shipping them out regardless of their connection to the fans is breathtaking.

But this isn’t news. We wish he’d sell. Apparently he won’t. But are you saying he’d be more acceptable if he put the ballpark where you want it and made the shipping unions happy?

As for the shocking rumor that Major League Baseball will not charge the A’s a relocation fee if they move to Las Vegas, spare me the smelling salts.

Sounds entirely likely to me. This current ballpark, and its tiny crowds, are an embarrassment to professional baseball. Locating the A’s in Las Vegas, in a glittering new stadium with the potential for new fans and a great vacation destination, must sound pretty good to other team owners and the rest of the league.

And how’s it playing in Oakland?

There’s a commission studying it.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cw.nevius@pressdemocrat.com. Twitter: @cwnevius