There are no two ways around it, people: I’m going to be writing about last night’s Stadium Lot Giveaway (that’s the name I’m trying out for it right now) for days, weeks, months … maybe years. This probably isn’t the optimal place to start — that would be by explaining to you what the Council actually did last night (as opposed to what it said it did — but this will help you get a sense of the forces at play.
Boy, that Arte Moreno sure does know how to pick his negotiators!
Right now I’m just sifting through media reports about last night’s meeting, which largely miss the point — but there’s one report that I want to highlight first. It contains a mistaken assertion — but it was a very easy mistake to make.
From a story in Ballpark Digest entitled “Angels casually threaten move during lease negotiations”:
It was a little unexpected: a rep for Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim owner Arte Moreno said the team has the resources to move to another city, as the Anaheim City Council debate changes to the Angel Stadium lease.
Charles Black was pretty blunt about the prospect of the Angels looking for a new home. It’s no secret that Moreno has cast an eye to other cities in the region, particularly downtown Los Angeles, as a new home for the Angels in the past few years. But with discussions on a lease extension only in the beginning phases, it is a little shocking to bring up the prospect of a move. From the Los Angeles Times:
“The owner of the Angels has made clear in our discussions he has the resources and willingness to build his own stadium,” said city consultant Charles Black, president of CB Urban Development in San Diego.
Black also told the council the Angels could move to Irvine, Irwindale or “at least half a dozen potential sites” in downtown Los Angeles.
After the meeting, Black said Moreno had not mentioned specific alternative sites in the talks with Anaheim.
It’s only a little surprising that “a rep for Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim owner Arte Moreno” would “casually threaten to leave the city” if he didn’t get his way in lease negotiations with the City of Anaheim. That’s just playing hardball. And Charlie Black, former San Diego Padres CEO and now President of CB Urban Development in San Diego — the person whom the story identifies as Moreno’s “rep” — presented this threat quite effectively. He didn’t betray to the Council the point mentioned at the end, that Moreno’s threat really wasn’t that well-developed — it was more … theoretical. But given the bottom line in the negotiations — that the City of Anaheim could under no circumstances allow the Angels to leave Anaheim — it still had to be taken seriously.
Black’s threat that the Angels may well move, in combination with the assurance of the city’s legal consultant and a few other factors, was enough to get the City Council to do exactly what Moreno wanted. Again: not surprising. But one subtle twist is a little surprising — and it wouldn’t be surprising if you missed it. Go back to that description again:
“The owner of the Angels has made clear in our discussions he has the resources and willingness to build his own stadium,” said city consultant Charles Black …
That’s right: the person whom the writer of the story quite reasonably — but (as a formal matter) erroneously — identified as “a rep” for Arte Moreno was in fact the consultant hired by the City.
He was not only representing the City as “outside staff” hired, I’m told by City Attorney Michael Houston — who, I’m told, coincidentally used to work for Charles Black — in this meeting, but he and his team are the ones negotiating with the Angels on the City’s behalf.
(They deny — or at least don’t interrupt the City Council majority when it denies — that “negotiations” have really at this point even begun, but that’s another story, hopefully later today. Let’s just say that if negotiations haven’t begun and the Memoranda of Understanding presented to Council came about through something other than negotiations — say, they set an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters and this is the first thing that came out looking like a legal document — then I think that someone may have paid off the monkeys, because it sure looks like the product of negotiation.)
Now, as a lawyer myself, I can tell you that sometimes lawyers have to tell clients unpleasant truths about the weakness of their negotiating position. I can’t remember, though, ever telling a client that “we have to give the opponent everything he wants because not signing this contract is simply not an option.” I mean, sure, if the alternative is going to prison for life or something, but here, at the supposed early stage of negotiations, not signing a contract is usually an option — especially if one’s client hasn’t had the chance to think through the tradeoffs in the negotiation.
For a lawyer to say that his client — especially one who is not in a desperate situation — must give in to the supposed demands of the other party at any cost strikes me as really weird. That’s what I expect the other side’s lawyer to say in a negotiation. It’s not what I’d expect of someone you’re paying.
And if the other party is trying to hurry things up for some reason, you’d think that the lawyer or agent would tell the other party that they’d better cool their heels until his client had had enough time to think through the issue. It’s the rare non-urgent contract — especially a nine-figure contract (if not ten, which is “a billion”) — that can’t wait for a little while for reasonable consideration.
You expect time pressure from the other party’s lawyer. You expect time pressure from your own lawyer if it really looks like the deal will otherwise fall apart and you have no decent options if it does. You don’t expect time pressure — extreme time pressure, in this case — from your own lawyer if it’s not really necessary. You tell your lawyer to tell the other party that you’ll need time to think about it. And they do.
You know who you do expect time pressure from? A salesman. And you’ll be able to view the video of the meeting and ask yourself: does the city’s paid staff that are negotiating on its behalf sound like the city’s legal representatives willing to fight for their wishes — or do they sound like salesmen for a project?
The person who wrote the story above was clearly confused about it. He thought that Charles Black was representing Arte Moreno! Imagine that!
You know what else I, as a client, wouldn’t expect from my attorney or agent? I might expect to be told that my position was so weak that we had no choice but to give in. But I wouldn’t expect to be told that in a public meeting. You know — a meeting where, as was the case last night, the representatives from the Angels were right there sitting in the audience. It would seem to undermine one’s negotiating position from the start — something that, in general, one does not want to do. (The other side would love for you to do so, of course, but that’s because they’re on the other side.)
Does admitting such woeful weakness of one’s position — wrongly, I believe, in this case — seem like a strong negotiating posture to you? Because to me, it seems like something else: a hard sell.
But that doesn’t make sense, does it? Why would the City Attorney (and maybe City Manager as well) hire someone to give the Counsel the hard sell on a project that gives away a major portion of the city’s assets? Is that what one seeks in a consultant?
I don’t know — but I wouldn’t think so. I wanted to ask Michael Houston about it last night, but he told me that he tries not to talk to the press.
It’s just so funny: the lawyer hired by the City staff to represent the city in these negotiations being identified as a rep for the other party! Hilarious. How can a writer make a mistake like that?
Good observations, Juice Brother! I don’t know what this has to do with our discussions on the other thread about keeping “partisan” talk out of these non-partisan Anaheim issues though.
Greater and more timely import.
I think it is important for ALL Anaheim residents to view the Council Archived Video from last nite regarding the MOU’s, to see, not only the positions (blanket approval) of the Council majority, but the thought process (or total LACK thereof-disputing the FORM of the documents while totally ignoring their content and financial consequences) deferral to the judgement of staff (Who represent the Tourism Businesses and NOT the residents) without any specific details supporting their (Councilmembers) positions and ADDITIONALLY letting slip statements and MIS statements which should BY THEMSELVES call this whole process into serious question. The supposed ‘study’ caiming multi-hundred million dollar economic benefit TO THE City needs to be DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, particularly concerning its METHODOLOGY and ASSUMPTIONS.Several flaws were already exposed by Mayor Tait.
“The Angels have expressd that eliminating the (team name) suffix “-of Anaheim” is IMPORTANT TO THEM” yet also saying “the mere existence of the Angels in Anaheim adds value to the quality of lives of the residents” Does this make you think, as it does me, that these folks think (falsely) that WE all have SERVERE image and self-worth problems, or that THEY ALL pin the scale on ARROGANCE? Which (oldest) profession gets repeatedly told to do what (the customer) wants, but stay out of sight?
“(Moreno) has made it clear that he has the resources to build his own Stadium, without public subsidy”
THEN WHY DOES THE COUNCIL MAJORITY FEEL IT HAS TO GIVE AWAY EVERYTHING BUT THE DOORKNOBS? (OOPS, late news – doorknobs too!)
Why does the same gentleman on the dias REPEATEDLY cites the prior NBA / Anaheim ‘deal’ as accepted practice WHEN THE DEAL FELL THROUGH AND ANAHIEM HAS NO NBA TEAM, yet criticises the (appraised estimate) value of naming rights mentioned by the Mayor in the Lawsuit as WITHOUT BASIS BECAUSE THE SUIT WAS LOST??
Will the phone and web “comment facility” so “graciously” provided by the City be PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, or just a venting outlet to be mined for supportive comments or ignored?
And this TOPPER from Ms. Kring ” (at the original hearing) the people never objected to giving Disney $30M for Maintainence and (Capex)”. As one of a LONG SUCCESSION of those objectors, my most charitable response would be that she is memory impaired or misinformed. Mayor Tait kindly cited from the minutes of that hearing to set her mis-recollection straight. And apparently, her idea of ‘victory’ is to obtain TWO luxury boxes instead of one – a real cheap date! One of the “Experts for hire” mentioned that San Diego realized an effective return of “about 7 1/2 percent”, although unclear if that was on investment, on assets, or ??? I will happily spend a 99 cent store buck for a calculator, to show her the ROR of an extra luxury box… but I don’t know if it will show that many digits TO THE RIGHT OF THE DECIMAL.
When my nausea subsides, I’ll return to view the public comments. Personally, I don’t think anything other than RECALL will help residents avoid a hosing of historic (biblical?) magnitude. The sad lesson learned from the four years of study and effort before the Disney Deal, was that, no matter HOW LONG and with HOW MUCH DETAIL and EFFORT the public objects, “It only takes 3 votes!” to do , and right now there are FOUR.
Odd how the RAMS ‘negotiations’ have faded from all official memory, especially the part where Anaheim DID NOT implode into a smoking crater when no amount of chapstick was enough for that prior council’s lips to soothe the posteriors of the Frontiere Organization. Why is that? OOPS! I forgot, history has NOTHING to teach us!
BREAKING: the team has decided to drop “Anaheim” from the name. No word on what the official new name will be.
http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/9/4/4694936/los-angeles-angels-drop-anaheim-name
That “article” says the Angels ALREADY HAVE a “NEW lease” that ” has been negotiated”, both known FALSE to anyone reading the news, the city council video or the rest of the articles in this series. The extension is under terms of the EXISTING lease, and new negotiations (per the official line) are yet to start. More like “BS” than “SB” .An example of why info on the web has little credibility.
Methinks thou dost whine a bit too much. You’re attacking points in that article I made no mention of, ignoring the topic of my comment. That in no way refutes what I posted.
That said, on the topic of name change, how does this report work for you?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1761872-angels-will-finally-be-allowed-to-drop-anaheim-from-their-team-name
I struggle to believe that people chase the “red herring” of the name thing.
First of all they are named LOS ANGELES or THE ANGELS. They have been named that since they played at Wrigley Field (west) under Bill Wrigley. Later when Autrey bought them, they went by the California Angels (following the idea of the Golden State Warriors and the California Seals) intending to draw a bigger audience.
It wasn’t until recently that Anaheim was even part of the name, I think as an attempt by the ever evil Disney company to co-brand and draw more name recognition to the region/parks.
The suggestion that somehow the name matters is fodder. Great for bloggers and blowhards but really means little financially (despite Tait’s ridiculous claim) and to fans at large.
What should matter is the core point here, is this a taxpayer giveaway.
Nameless,
Don’t let facts get in the way of a fine partisan witch hunt by the Blogivator…….Who doesn’t even live in Anaheim.
Sitting in the white bastian of diversity: Brea, CA.
Haha, I love it when I see I’ve started to draw blood. That’s when I get accused of living in Brea.
I’m from the gloriously multicultural bastion of Brea south of downtown. Your attacks on diversity cannot harm me. And I don’t have to live in Anaheim to know a truly disgusting grab of public assets when I see one, “Dmitri,” nor to want to do what I can to stop it.
I agree substantially with the comment of my fellow Brean (or whatever he is), though I think that the etymological point, while true, is silly. I liked the “California Angels” name best (although Southern California might be more accurate) and so far as I can tell the switch to “Anaheim” was Disney’s attempt to further burnish the brand of its locale. However, I can believe that the name does matter to people from Anaheim — I just think (1) it doesn’t matter as much as claimed and (2) it’s not bad to be named after one’s state but it’s galling to be named after a different city.
As I said while talking to the Council, though, the giveaway is far and away the primary point. And note that the bloggers here who get that while the broader media is fixated primarily on the name, so spare us your derision for our noble non-profession.
Sorry. I consider Bloggers and Blog Commenters one in the same, didn’t mean to mock you specifically, just generally.
As for your comment: “it’s not bad to be named after one’s state but it’s galling to be named after a different city.” I might agree but the team is named after another city. Always has been. That’s the one constant. The others have come and gone, but Wrigley’s whole point was just that: to name the team Los Angeles. Somewhere there is a great book about this and Wrigleys wild ass parties on Catalina, it was a great piece, recommended to me by Huell Howser himself.
Anyway, next time I am visiting my brother’s kids in Brea, I will think of you!
You have to give something to get something. Anaheim will get a lot out of this deal.
Help me out on this one.
Such as???? Anything besides that warm feeling of getting your pants wet?(And the guy doing it saying “Oh, No, It’s Rain!!!”) Besides watching lots on YouTube this week about the downfall of Detroit, I also started to think about the many “Big Deals” for the “Crown Jewel” areas of L.A., while the rest rotted out from the inside. (Wonder why Districts (since 1925) didn’t stop that?) Sure, there was LOADS of “Economic Benefit” flying around, just NOT going to the city supplying the assets!
Next time you do a word problem, show your work.
Word problems, you say? For time wasting that is marginally funnier (?) than sports gossip sites or tourist directories, (ask anon about those) try visiting http://www.bsatworld.com and click on “More BSAT problems”.
Actually, I thought your brilliant example above of subject-shifting was quite a good waste of time, not to mention words.
UPDATE: Link to whole 4+ hour video of meeting now posted at the top. (Requires Microsoft Silverlight.) We’ll try to get smaller and more relevant excerpts to you ASAP.