Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Horse Racing And Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasanton racing future uncertain as private proposals and housing impacts surface
Summary
The ad hoc committee heard competing proposals to keep horses and racing at the Alameda County Fairgrounds through the fair and discussed the housing and employment impacts for roughly 16–20 families living on-site; private backers described LLC, engineering hires and funding commitments but regulators and the TOC raised statutory and compliance concerns.
The Alameda County Agriculture Fair ad hoc committee spent much of its meeting weighing whether horse racing and stabling can continue at the Alameda County Fairgrounds past the association’s March 25 timeline and how to mitigate housing impacts for backstretch workers.
Jerome Hoban, CEO of the Alameda County Fair, told the committee that the Fair decided not to operate racing without a third-party operator and that efforts to keep racing previously cost the Fair roughly $1.9 million. "We lost approximately $1,900,000 trying to do horse racing trying to keep racing alive," a Fair representative said when summarizing the association’s financial exposure.
Board members and public speakers discussed two linked questions: whether stabling-only (boarding and training without a live meet) could be sustained and who would pay the operational costs, and whether the water-quality permitting regime would allow horses to remain during the dry season if the sanitation district accepts effluent. Commissioner discussions emphasized that boarding differs from racing: boarding requires stalls and training infrastructure, while racing also requires track preparation, safety staffing and certification as a racing venue.
Private proponents presented a proposal that they say would underwrite stabling and engineering work. A text read at the meeting attributed to George Schmidt said an LLC was formed, a TIN applied for, a bank account being set up, a water engineer hired and "$22,000,000 committed so far." A later speaker said he and John Harris had committed $2,000,000 for initial costs and engaged SilverGates and CBG for water engineering; the committee requested a formal written business proposal and documentation before committing to a course of action.
Industry representatives also described limits to outside support: Bill Nader of the Committee of Track Owners (TOC) said that a southern-stabling funding committee provided about $2,000,000 as a stop-gap to relocate northern-horse operations earlier in the season but that his committee has not received the formal application to continue stabling at Pleasanton and that statutory constraints make continuation unlikely. "The committee has not formally met... the probability that we would continue would be very, very slim," Nader said.
Housing emerged as a central community concern. Multiple public speakers — including backstretch workers and community advocates — described roughly 16–20 families living in the fairground campground and raised immediate welfare concerns if stabling support ends on short notice. "We have 20 families if not more being affected... they have kids in school," one commenter said, and speakers urged county help with legal, housing, food and medical services.
Board members discussed short-term cost estimates. One commissioner cited the stabling agreement figure of about $13,300 per day and extrapolated roughly $1.2 million to continue stabling through the fair; the Fair said that figure covers track operations, staffing and fixed costs but does not directly cover individual grooms’ incomes.
No formal decision to extend stabling or to fund housing assistance was made at the ad hoc meeting. Supervisors said they will review any written proposal from private backers and explore mitigation options for affected families; the Fair said it will continue working with engineers and with county staff on logistics while the county evaluates contractual and regulatory obligations.
