Alameda County supervisors hear significant public support for staying Coliseum litigation; board asks AASEG for written purchase offer

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 12 heard sustained public comment urging the board to support a temporary stay in litigation tied to the Oakland Coliseum redevelopment and the proposed purchase by the African American Sports and Entertainment Group (AASEG). President Miley recessed the meeting into closed session after the public comment period; when the board returned, County Counsel said the board was unable to take action today but requested that AASEG provide a written and detailed purchase offer as soon as possible so the board could consider initiating negotiations.

Supporters who spoke during the two-minute public-comment slots framed a stay as a way to preserve momentum for a redevelopment that they said could bring jobs, housing and economic opportunity. “We are very very excited about the prospects of the development of the Coliseum site,” said Ray Bobbin, who identified himself with AASEG and asked the board to allow time for legal and financial analysis. “We believe that this will create incredible tax base for the county.”

Labor leaders and unions joined business and community speakers. Andreas Kluver, who identified himself as secretary-treasurer of the Alameda County Building Trades Council, told the board the developer is “deeply rooted in this community” and pledged commitments to union jobs and local hiring. Tommy Sandoval, representing Alameda County Building Trades and District Council 16 Painters Union, said a stay “will have no material impact on the case” and argued preserving the timeline matters for local employment opportunities.

Other speakers — including John Jones III of AASEG, Dr. Jones (CEO of RMC Kingdom Investment Limited), Lincoln University athletics director Desmond Gums and Pastor Raymond Langford — described the project as a historic chance to keep the Oakland A’s in Oakland, provide student and affordable housing and create long-term community benefits. “This is a historic moment for the community with the tremendous potential for growth, inclusion, and revitalization,” Dr. Jones said.

County Counsel announced that the matter involving Esther Goolsby v. County of Alameda (Alameda County Superior Court, case No. 21CV002126) will return to the board’s agenda on Sept. 17, and that receipt of a reasonable written proposal from AASEG could prompt the board to take public action to initiate negotiations. The board’s announcement did not describe a formal vote on the closed-session matter; it instead requested more detailed purchase terms from AASEG to support further consideration.

What happens next: the board flagged the item for Sept. 17 and asked AASEG to deliver a written, detailed offer to provide clarity about proposed terms; the board indicated that with a reasonable offer in hand it may be prepared to initiate public negotiations.