From the start of the Oakland Athletics’ years-long quest to build a new ballpark in the city, residents and officials wanted to know: How much will this project cost taxpayers?

Now, years into the team’s bid to build a $12 billion project that includes a 35,000-seat ballpark, housing, retail, a hotel and more, with the team pushing to get a vote on the project by year’s end, it’s still not clear exactly how much public money is involved.

To keep the Oakland Athletics rooted in Oakland, it takes a village ... and much more.

Keeping the A’s rooted in Oakland started as a project and a challenge for Oakland city government, but has morphed into a state and national project.

It’s been a while since anyone has reported on the $1 billion or more in infrastructure spending — much of it to build new underpasses and overpasses and shuttle bus routes to get fans to an otherwise largely inaccessible industrial area — that Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is trying to raise for a new A’s stadium, and today the San Francisco Chronicle decided to give a shot at tallying up where all the potential subsidy money would come from. The answer: wherever Schaaf can find it.

Time is running out for the Oakland Athletics and the city of Oakland to reach a deal by the end of the year.

Oakland leaders painted a stark picture Tuesday of negotiations between the city and the A’s on a $12 billion waterfront ballpark project and surrounding development, saying the two sides still need to hammer out how to pay for millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades, and agree on affordable housing and a non-relocation agreement.

Oakland’s negotiations with the Oakland A’s around a $12 billion baseball stadium have hit another snag: there’s no deal on the table and no financial analysis of the project, which is required for the proposal to move forward.

Oakland residents and the City Council expected a full financial review of the controversial proposed Howard Terminal ballpark for West Oakland at a Tuesday meeting. But the city’s staff admitted in a Sept. 16 update that the Tuesday discussion was being reduced to an oral report on the project’s status.

In the corporate world, a publicly owned business that knowingly hid the true intent of a massive spending provision from shareholders and regulators would be subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry and face lawsuits from outraged investors. But in the California state government — despite voter-enacted laws demanding openness in decision-making — there are no such negative consequences to fear. This week, two news accounts helped illustrate the irresponsibility of just such a maneuver last year in Sacramento.

On Monday, state officials reported revenue for the current fiscal year was on track to be $5 billion — and perhaps as much as $25 billion — short of spring forecasts. Given how dependent the state treasury is on capital gains taxes — and given Wall Street’s recent doldrums — this was no surprise. The revenue roller coaster is part of life in California and should lead to frugality even when times are flush.

As the 2021-22 state budget was being finalized in June of last year, a $279.5 million appropriation was quietly inserted into the massive spending plan before it was sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Funds appropriated in this item shall be for the Port of Oakland for improvements that facilitate enhanced freight and passenger access and to promote the efficient and safe movement of goods and people,” the budget declared.

A coalition of port workers, truckers and cargo terminal operators filed a lawsuit against the state agency that voted earlier this summer to allow Howard Terminal to be used for the A’s $12 billion proposed waterfront project.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission violated environmental law and failed to take into account environmental impacts of the A’s proposed stadium and surrounding development project. The A’s are named in the lawsuit as a relevant party.

Voters in a democracy should always get the final say. A recent poll indicates that 76% of those asked believed that the voters should have been allowed to weigh in on whether public dollars should be spent on the Howard Terminal project that would create a new home for the Oakland A’s. Twelve thousand people signed a petition to encourage our City Council to put the question to the voters as to whether any public monies — local, state or federal — should be used to build the stadium, affordable housing or to finance infrastructure in an around the Howard Terminal site. The City Council rejected this reasonable request, and it makes us wonder, “Why?”

Why would the Mayor and the City Council be reluctant to hear from the voters, even if it was a “non-binding” vote? A representative democracy requires that we listen to the will of the people.

On July 5, the City Council rejected the request of Oakland voters to place a measure on the 2022 ballot to allow them to weigh in on whether the City should spend public funds on infrastructure for billionaire A’s owner John Fisher’s privately owned baseball stadium and luxury condominium project at Howard Terminal.

Along with 800 likely voters, 76% of us said ‘yes’ to a survey by a nationally acclaimed polling firm that asked if we wanted to be heard before the City spent public money on infrastructure and other costs associated with the A’s development project. We followed that by getting 12,000 signatures on petitions sent directly to the Council demanding that they place the question on the Nov. 8, 2022, ballot.