Raiders Face Tough Odds Scoring With Voters in Oakland

What is happening in Oakland right now in connection with the Raiders strikes terror in the heart of every mother’s son who operates a sports franchise in this land.

City government in Oakland has arranged up-front money, and a guarantee of more money over the years, in an effort to bring to gaff the football team.

A grass-roots movement is afoot to stop the transaction until such time as folks go to the polls to decide whether they want it.

If the measure goes to the polls, it is odds-on the deal is deceased, much to the distress of other owners whose leases will be expiring and, going on the muscle, may have to buck the dangerous precedent of voter approval.

Proponents of sports measures have a hard time winning at the polls because of the way the campaigns develop.

In Oakland, for instance, one side would try to explain calmly that the team would be a spiritual and business asset to the community and, with a break, could pay off the debt the local government guarantees.

This group would be bucking another shouting, “House the homeless, not the Raiders!”

Most voters in a case like this don’t understand the issues, but they do understand the homeless, education and taxes.

And, when the hollering match starts, those trying to explain the advantages of football will be suffocated by those screaming to stop the giveaway.

What Oakland does with the Raiders is Oakland’s business. Give ‘em money, throw ‘em out, put proponents in jail--it is of no concern here. No demand will be made that troops be sent there in any event.

But, because of a referendum, Los Angeles came within a flick of losing the Dodgers shortly after their arrival in 1958.

To bag this celebrated troupe from Brooklyn, Los Angeles, then without major league baseball, made a trade whereby it received a minor league park called Wrigley Field, owned by the Dodgers, in exchange for 300 acres in Chavez Ravine.

A faction resenting Walter O’Malley, as an Oakland faction resents Al Davis, got a petition going and raised enough signatures to take the measure to the ballot.

It seemed no contest. Sports fans, enraptured by the presence of big league baseball, loved the Dodgers. Almost uniformly, City Hall backed the team, as did the media.

What supporters of the Dodgers didn’t reckon with was the power of “Stop the land grab,” the working slogan of the other side.

In a city the size of Los Angeles, a preponderance of voters don’t know the cutoff play from a hamburger sandwich. They see baseball as a nice little game, but not nice enough to win their support from guys hollering, “Stop the land grab.”

The media hurled all their artillery into the fight on behalf of the Dodgers. Movie stars, entertainers and celebrities appeared on a telethon to urge a vote for the Dodgers. The fight was unexpectedly bloody.

And, in the end, the Dodgers sneaked in with less than 51% of the vote.

Otherwise, the city would have lost the team, whose success in L.A. revolutionized sports on the West Coast. The gates would open for other baseball teams, for basketball and hockey teams, for a new football league.

It isn’t likely the Raiders in Oakland would have this impact, but the problems they would face in a referendum would not be dissimilar.

Anaheim knew how to raise money for a stadium. It arranged it without a vote. It got Anaheim a baseball team.

Next, without a vote, it arranged an enlargement of the stadium and handed out 90 acres of valuable real estate to capture pro football.

Meadowlands worked without a vote. So did Mayor Lindsay of New York when, to save the Yankees, he bankrolled a massive refurbishing job.

Votes can be dangerous. Sports proponents took one in Cleveland for a domed stadium and lost. They lost in Miami and San Francisco. They can’t get out of their tracks in Boston.

Ask the voters for a new stadium in Los Angeles, and cries of “House the homeless” will knock you right out of the box.

You will be drowned out trying to explain that money earmarked for a stadium would never be earmarked for the homeless, anyway . . . that stadium revenues over the years would be expected to pay off the debt . . . that nice facilities for those who pay taxes, and aren’t homeless, are important in this society, too.

Over the last decade, the volatility of matters connected with the Raiders has been intriguing. Seeking to change locations, as teams had done for half a century, they land in an antitrust suit that lasts eight years.

They land in an eminent domain suit that lasts three years.

They land in a medical suit in which the owner of the Raiders is charged with causing the heart attack of a rival owner.

They land a deal with Irwindale, which advances a $10-million deposit, and a city councilman in Los Angeles brings a taxpayer suit.

The suit is dismissed, but Irwindale can’t complete the deal anyway.

Now, in Oakland, leaders come up with a large package in order to get the Raiders, and constituents are yelling foul.

If they prevail, the thrill of expiring contracts will be watered down for sports promoters all over.