How a Ballpark Threatens California Agriculture

By Jock O’Connell

The Port of Oakland is a Northern California enterprise that operates an international airport, oversees valuable real estate holdings in and around Oakland’s Jack London Square, and – oh yes -- plays a vital, indeed indispensable role in connecting the agricultural economy of Northern and Central California to world markets.

Containerized exports through the Port of Oakland in 2021 totaled $19.18 billion. Consistent with the port’s location amidst the most productive agricultural real estate on the planet, some two-thirds of those exports were agricultural commodities such as meats ($5.32 billion), fruits and nuts ($5.25 billion), dairy products ($1.08 billion), beverages ($767 million), and processed foods ($365 million).

For those unfamiliar with California agriculture, it’s big. The state is, in terms of crop value, the nation’s most prolific farming state, with cash farm receipts totaling $49.1 billion last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That was more than the receipts generated by agriculture in Iowa and Nebraska, combined. California has also been America’s top exporter of agricultural commodities since 2000.

But this commentary isn’t addressed to city dwellers who may not have much understanding of where their food comes. It’s instead aimed at the farmers, growers, ranchers, dairy operators, and food processors who export their products to overseas markets, especially through the Port of Oakland.

To be sure, the past couple of pandemic years have been a stressful period for everyone involved in maritime trade at the Port of Oakland. Supply chain disruptions have led to reduced ship visits to the port. That has resulted in periodic shortages of consumer goods on store shelves throughout Northern California, as the arrival of imported merchandise has been slowed. But those tend to be petty grievances compared with difficulties exporters, especially agricultural shippers, have had in finding enough vessel space or the containers to transport their often-perishable commodities to customers abroad.

Shippers have tried to find alternative routes to overseas markets but typically found them expensive and impractical. That’s why, for example, there has been exceedingly little diversion of tree nut exports to customers in Europe and the Middle East from Oakland to the Port of Houston.

The plight of grower-exporters led in no small way to the introduction of the bipartisan Overseas Shipping Reform Act of 2021 (H.R. 4996), one of whose two co-authors, Democratic Congressman John Garamendi, represents a farming district that includes the University of California at Davis, the world’s premier institution for agricultural science and technology, oenology, and animal medicine.

More than 100 organizations representing various aspects of the agriculture industry have been urging Congress to expedite passage of the measure since its introduction by Garamendi and Representative Dusty Johnson (R-South Dakota) on August 10, 2021. On December 8th, the House overwhelmingly passed its version of the legislation on a roll-call vote of 364-60. A Senate version (the Klobucher-Thune Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022) was passed on a voice vote on March 31. Representatives of both houses are now negotiating the details of a final version to be sent to President Biden.

The desire for immediate remedies is manifest. “The transportation crisis for U.S. agriculture products has become increasingly dire. Many agricultural products produced in the U.S. experience significant competition from other countries. If we cannot deliver our products dependably, our foreign customers will find alternatives to our exports,” the American Farm Bureau Federation and the other organizations warned in a recent letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Although political support is widespread, logistical impediments remain at a time when Americans’ demand for imported merchandise has reached unprecedented levels and has clogged global supply chains unaccustomed to and undesigned for current volumes of trade.

Fortunately, the plight of agricultural exporters in California has lately elicited a commitment from the Port of Oakland to find new ways of facilitating overseas shipments of farm products. According to the port’s April newsletter, port officials are “helping exporters by providing an exclusive depot for empty container pick-up. The depot enables shippers to avoid busy marine terminals where most empty containers are stored.”

The new temporary container yard is receiving federal help in the form of financial relief for its customers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is providing agricultural and other exporters assistance in covering expenses for using the pop-up yard. The dedicated container yard opened March 7 as a part of the Biden Administration’s larger program to relieve port congestion nationally. USDA is offering a $400 incentive per export reefer (refrigerated container) and $200 for a “dry” container (non-reefer). This funding is for the temporary staging of loaded export containers. In addition, the USDA is offering a $125 incentive to pick up an empty dry container used for agricultural bookings.

“This will help defray the additional costs incurred by our shippers and make usage of the new facility more feasible,” said Port of Oakland Maritime Director Bryan Brandes. “The temporary yard provides a place for truckers to easily pick up empty containers to be loaded with US exports and it allows for staging loaded containers ready to be shipped overseas without crowding busy terminals.”

Sounds nice, but here’s the rub. That container yard being used to facilitate agricultural exports through the Port of Oakland is a parcel of land known as Howard Terminal. Its continued use to expedite agricultural trade is endangered by a proposal to build a new waterfront stadium for the Oakland A’s atop, you guessed it, Howard Terminal. And that’s only part of the plan being pushed by billionaire John Fisher. Before he is done, the entire area surrounding Howard Terminal will be fundamentally transformed with the addition of thousands of high-end housing units, hotel rooms, retail and entertainment establishments that will be sitting tooth-by-jowl next to a working seaport. It is difficult to imagine a juxtaposition of real estate uses more likely to produce friction.

While Howard Terminal would be the first casualty of Fisher’s scheme, his overall plan would ultimately threaten maritime operations by introducing into what has long been an industrial district a type of neighborhood that is poorly matched with – and highly likely to strenuously object to – the sights and sounds of heavy equipment, trucks, railroads, and huge container ships. And that incompatibility would become even more mutually aggravating if, as many in government and the maritime media seem to feel, the future of U.S. ports lies in 24/7 operations.

So, California’s agricultural community needs to ask itself: How valuable is the Port of Oakland to your future ability to ship your produce to overseas markets? If the answer is that the state’s farm exporters would be at serious peril if the port were obliged to curtail its operations because a billionaire baseball team owner and the occupants of the luxury condominiums he plans to build downwind of a working seaport have more sway with local government officials, then it may be the right time to make agriculture’s views known to the city folk in Oakland who seem bent on shorting the interests of a huge chunk of Northern California’s economy.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in Jock’s commentaries are his own and may not reflect the positions of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.