.
.
.
The story behind Anaheim’s City Council Agenda Item 17 is — like its beneficiaries Dr. Howard and Linda Knohl — quite rich.
(Before anything else, please read Thy Vo’s excellent story on this topic, which was just published in the Voice of OC.)
The Knohls are my kind of folks, theater-wise: cultured New Yorkers who want to bring high-quality musical theater to North Orange County. But while I share their taste in theater, I don’t share their taste in setting up a what amounts to little more than a paper corporation with a lawyer behind it; holding big fundraisers for Kris Murray (3/3/14) and Jordan Brandman (4/2/14 and 9/28/16); and in return suddenly getting a last-minute exclusive right (so long as they meet certain targets) for their “foundation” — located at a P.O. Box — to develop the land at the City Grove Theater and turn it into a major Performing Arts Center, and at a minimum to tie up the land for the next four years. I love Into the Woods, but not “Into the Weeds.”
This is the City’s public land — a significant asset that, among other things, could be the key to hammering out a truly mutually beneficial agreement with the Los Angeles (for now) Angels — and if this really is a good idea (as it might well be) then there is no reason to slide it under the door at the last moment that their agent Jordan Brandman is on the Anaheim City Council. The only reason for haste here is to effectuate a “smash-and-grab” as Brandman — and more importantly, one may suspect, Paul Emery — prepare to leave City Government.
I don’t know whether the Angels are proper partners for such a deal — but I also don’t know that they, or some other group, aren’t. I do know that suddenly giving a huge entitlement to a non-profit housed in a P.O. Box, rather than investigating what the best options are, is terrible policymaking.
(And, by the way, the handling of this item ought to be considered front-and-center when it comes to Paul Emery’s performance evaluation in closed session today. Lucille Kring, who might face re-election in two years, is in an interesting position in that she’s not a major beneficiary of the Knohls, but does stand a huge chance of pissing off the Angels if this puts a wrench in any cooperative plans they might be developing with the new Council majority for the Stadium Grounds. (The problem has never been with building a parking structure, but with the City getting so massively frozen out of the benefits of such a deal — which is not something that Arte Moreno actually needs to do.)
As usual, Mayor Tait is speaking loads of sense on this sort of “toss-out-the-rules” approach to doling out binding rights to contributors. Among his comments quoted in the VOC (edits theirs) are:
This is a binding agreement [on] one of our largest assets…without a [request for proposals] and without any disclosure requirements on who we’re selling it to and without any public input. What’s the rush?
There was no process to why they were selected over other groups. I’d like to see their finances made public (…) and how much they’ve raised in the last ten years.
The question is not simply “should Anaheim do this?” but should this seemingly inert non-profit be the one to receive an exclusive contract to do it? Have we seen their financial statements? No — but VOC says that they started the year with only $85,000 in the bank. Anaheim has not asked them for any financial statements — and even the benchmarks the nonprofit has to meet can be met by “bank statements or a letter stating its worth” — which is, to say the least, open to abuse.
And yet, if the Council passes Item 17, doomed (but probably about to have his compensation fluffed) City Manager Paul Emery is entitled to immediately negotiate a contract with this group that will bind the city for years at best.
YOU, Dear Reader, should be coming out to the City Council today to speak against THAT!
Meanwhile, City spokesperson Mike Lyster and ink-cloud-dispensing Councilwoman Kris Murray have some whoppers of disingenuity to offer us.
Murray:
“Under the agreement being considered by the council, there is no financial risk to the city. In fact, there are fundraising milestones the organization must meet to continue the process. I’m proud to support this grass-roots movement to bring a privately financed, world-class performing arts center to Anaheim to benefit our residents and enrich our community.”
First, it’s charming that Kris Murray believes that an effort for some wealthy Anaheim Hills residents to install themselves as a cement block in one corner of the Stadium Grounds counts as a “grass-roots movement.” No, Councilmember Murray — a true “grassroots movement” is the sort of thing that placed you in the Council minority for the next two years. This is an elite movement of cronies. Not the same thing.
Second, it’s astounding that Murray can discuss the capture of a major city real property asset as “privately financed.” That’s the intent, supposedly, but if they fall short in their fundraising goals and Disney captures the City Council majority again, as they eventually someday will, then it would not be so difficult for that Council to work out “favorable terms” to the foundation in all but name — such as the sort of “we pay for it and them eventually you get to keep it” agreement with the Mickey and Friends parking garage — which would mean that much of the assets eventually controlled by the Foundation would have been public. The history of the Museo building shows just how much the City likes to pull this trick, rewarding Councilmembers with resume-burnishing seats on Foundation Boards to help lubricate the process.
Here just one “financial risk” to the city despite those “fundraising milestones”: it’s called “opportunity costs.” The binding nature of the contract — with a $20 million milestone due March 2018 that can probably be finessed and the really significant milestones occurring in 2019 ($50MM) and June 2020 (100% of project cost) — means that if they can get together $70 million in donations that are presumably refundable if they can’t reach that final benchmark then they can hold up anything else happening with the Stadium Grounds until August 2020. Or, they could presumably bargain away that right (to the City? to the Angels? to Disney, which as I read it could be given control over the nonprofit?) for “valuable consideration.” Anaheim does not KNOW whether there is a better way than this to process … because ANAHEIM DIDN’T TRY TO FIND ONE!”
Don’t believe me? Here’s Mike Lyster:
“The city isn’t looking to build a performing arts center but instead was approached by APACF, which would be given the opportunity to raise money and be considered for a lease should they be successful.”
Oh, it looks to me like the City IS looking to “build a performing arts center,” given that they’re ruling out every other possibility with this lease for the next four years! And yes — they would have “the opportunity to raise money” — which they have already had — but does Lyster think that they only thing that they’re bargaining for here, “should they be successful” is to “be considered for a lease”? Like, what — after they raise 100% of their (supposed) costs, the City is going to be able to just say “nah, we’re not going to do this”?
WHO DOES HE THINK HE’S KIDDING? (Wait, that’s actually an easy question: everyone who isn’t already in on the deal.)
Not only that, but if you look closely … wait for it … we do not even know exactly what the non-profit is proposing!!! It has 360 days to provide the City with
a proposed development plan, including a site plan, a scope of work and estimated development costs, including construction.
So, again: the hurry here is, what exactly?
Here’s another beaut from Lyster, as told by Thy Vo:
City spokesman Mike Lyster said so far the city has only discussed a long-term ground lease and that the agreement is non-binding, meaning the foundation’s exclusive negotiation rights only hold if they meet major fundraising milestones before the agreement expires in August 2020.
Aha. You know what you’re saying when you say that an entity’s contractual rights only hold if they perform in certain ways? You’re saying that THE AGREEMENT IS BINDING — at least upon the city. If they act in certain ways based on the City’s promises, then the City would be estopped from cancelling the expected benefits of those actions. A non-binding contract is “either of us can walk away from the agreement any time we’d like without penalty.” Now, you can have provisions for how much a party would pay to exit a binding agreement — allowing “breach” under some circumstances, to some extent, at some cost — and to that extent the agreement may not be “binding” as in “we can pay our way out of it.” But there’s one major sort of transaction where the default rule is that you can’t just back out of an agreement — and that is … real property transactions!
I’d really like to know what the City Attorney’s office has to say about this. I think that these ought to be familiar concepts to them. Do we think we can get a really good, considered answer from them — including from Anaheim’s brand spanking new City Attorney Arturo Fiero — TODAY? The Council should be GRILLING HIM on these issues. If he’s not clear on all of the legalities at hand — then he should ask them to please hit the emergency brake on the deal.
Here’s a letter from the Foundation’s attorney about today’s agenda item:
Coming up in a few minutes, let’s take a look at the entire agenda packet for Item 17 — including its proposed contract, but the hour is late, so let’s get the above up now.
12.6 APAC also acknowledges the possibility that the Property might be affected by potential easements supporting the Anaheim Rapid Connection or California High Speed Rail, or by any other City or government agency easements on the Property. This acknowledgement shall be incorporated into all subsequent and related contracts and other documents pertaining to a proposed project.
Maybe the Grove is in the way of something.
Chhhooooooo choooooooooo! EGO EXPRESS COMING THROoooooUGH!
Ankle ankle . . . Chomp.
Hey, why not go for the gusto ? Remember Museo? Anybody ever go back and look how that $1M advance on future fundraising worked out ? And the perpetual(?) rent forgiveness for the Rancho (_____) Stables ? Just get in line, before they fix the broken hydrant!
What we just saw in that debate over Item 17 is nothing short of jaw-dropping.
“The City” negotiated, but the City was the Staff, based on a report that only the Council majority, but not the minority, had seen before yesterday — and the Staff, not the Council, will decide whether and when the counterparty has met its obligations under the agreement, which will bind the Council (according to Staff) or not (according to the Council majority.)
Craziness offered to sell a pre-planned heist. (Hey, does that extra 5-6 acres included in the deal, to the east of the Grove, include the area of the old train station? WAS THAT IN THE REPORTS?)
Uhhhhh, major Brown Act violation?
One might think so.
But they can’t be so incredibly obtuse as to actually admit they had a serial meeting, can they?
They argued against us that it’s technically legal — and the court bought it.
Lol, I don’t think so!
Get a better judge.
One last heist as they are shown the door.
I call bullshit on this and the rest of their contracts.
Cancel all of them. Let the injured party sue.
Gonna be a laugh riot.
Well there is that “Charter Gaffe” which is task number one with the new majority. All votes the last three years that did not get four votes are set to be nullified.
If you actually take the time to read this letter (I ignored it at first) you find the author praising Anaheim for it GREAT attractions INCLUDING CITY NATIONAL GROVE, THE FREAKIN’ PLACE THEY WANT TO KNOCK DOWN!
No you can’t make up stuff like this.
And now that I think of it, what Anaheim entity has the dough to kick-start the fundraising and the incentive to get the Street car back on the rails?
Any guesses?
Yes, Mr. Zenger, the Grove IS in the way of something. We covered this a while back. Remember the monumental snit fit Curt Pringle threw with Mehdi Morshed over the HSR actually coming into the Stadium parking lot where the train station already was, which made him bonkers because he had gone to such trouble to move the station to the other side of the freeway where it didn’t belong? It was obvious something else was intended for this spot.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/11/follow-the-dark-money-part-2-disneys-return-on-campaign-investment-is-arte-letting-mickey-park-in-his-front-yard/
Why do I see Curt’s fingerprints all over something that should only have Knohl fingerprints on it? Am I that paranoid now? Something is NOT RIGHT about this, and the fight to push forward last night WITHOUT DELAY was too intense to be accidental. They are up to something. Anyone have time to read the contracts and see if the agreement is transferable? Can they lock in the development and then option it off to another entity in exchange for enough money to actually build a preforming arts center elsewhere? In that case (in Murray’s mind) there is no harm if the taxpayers get hosed on a $50MM deal, because we are getting a preforming arts center, we just went about it in a round about way. Yes that is really how the logic works at City Hall.
Last night was horrifying. Once again the Mayor and James Vanderbilt pointed out the horse manure of giving about $50MM in prime real estate to a private entity that had not provided financials, and had diminishing fund-raising records. In fact, their events SPEND more on the events than they MAKE! (I thought I was the only one who did that. Apparently so do multi-millionaires. Go figure.)
Murray stuck to the script, “this is the same as when we work with YMCA and Boys and Girls Club and GOALS” yeah all except for the many acres of prime real estate without a viable funding stream, sure it is, honey.
Yes indeedy:
2. Restrictions on Change in Ownership and Assignment of Agreement.
2.1 Unique qualifications. The qualifications and identity of APAC are of particular
concern to the City. APAC’s qualifications, experience, and focus are the reasons
that the City has entered into this Agreement with APAC.
2.2 No assignment. APAC may not assign or otherwise transfer its rights under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, which the City may
withhold at its discretion.
2.3 Right to Partner. With the City’s consent, which may not be unreasonably withheld,
APAC may enter into partnership agreements as it may deem necessary in order to
accomplish the goals and milestones set forth in this Agreement.
So the City can approve a transfer or a partnership with another entity – like, say Disney that has real assets.
My belief is that this agreement is invalid because APAC has misrepresented itself as a uniquely qualified to do this deal. In fact they have no experience at all and lost $20,000 on their “Great Gatsby” fundraiser. The new council ought to be able to nullify this on the grounds that the prior council was hoodwinked.
Almost all of the above is based on lack of knowledge and misstatements of facts. The real truth is that there are people dedicated to bringing a word class performing arts center to Anaheim. The city and APACF have actually been in talks to achieve this for the last 7 years spanning several administrations.
We stand by our story, Dr. Knohl, but will look forward to talking this through with you further. Please let us know when you (and ideally your wife) might be able to make yourselves available for an interview.
I don’t doubt that your interest in bringing a world class performing arts center to Anaheim is sincere. Your estimate of the past 7 years spanning “several administrations” seems to be off, if you mean Mayoral Administrations (seven years ago was the beginning of Curt Pringle’s last year as Mayor), but if you mean something else by that (City Managers?) then we look forward to finding out what has been going on largely outside of public view.
My own sense is that, making a few reasonable and charitable assumptions, your and your wife’s culpability in how this came forward in minimal. You’re not an expert in how cities are supposed to do this sort of thing lawfully. Sadly for you, you’re probably about to become one.
“The real truth is that there are people dedicated to etc.” The kind of sentence that makes my (I don’t wanna say bs to this nice man) meter go off. Nobody doubts that there are people dedicated to that. The “real truth” is always more complicated.
1) Have you ever built a “world-class” performing arts center?
2) How did you manage to lose twenty grand on that great Gatsby fundraiser? I would have thought that was an immediate disqualifier for somebody who needs to raise $200,000,000 world-class anything.
3) Have you considered just using in ARTIC? That cost $200,000,000 and is just sitting there.
P.S. Has it ever occurred to you that possibly you were being used in a slow-roll plan to demolish The Grove because it might have been in the way of something else?
This is said with a great deal of respect for the Knohls and what they are trying to do. I have concerns and I will share them here, although I would have preferred a private conversation, but this has gone public so we need to address concerns publicly.
Yes, the Foundation has been working on this for 7 years. In that time, the Foundation has not yet raised enough to even do the environmental docs for the property. That is not intended to insult those involved, it is simply an observation that we need a better standard for what success looks like, because if the Foundation has to pony up those funds for those costs we need to know where that is coming from. A solid commitment from the City regarding real estate gifts to the Foundation will certainly aid big money donors looking for assurance of success, but they can make PLEDGES now without losing their funds, and a commitment from the City does not prevent additional losses in admin costs as we have already seen. How do we plan to overcome that deficit spending? (Keep in mind I have lost my shirt on some fund-raisers, it happens, but we use the experience to learn, and I have seen no accounting of what lessons were learned by the shortfalls. If public real estate is involved, we have not only a right but an obligation to future generations to ask these hard questions. I believe the Knohls know that the questions are not aimed at their character and are proof we perceive them as professional enough to accept that those questions will be asked of those we take seriously.
Dr. Knohl is correct that there are many who support the idea of a performing arts center. And in the recent study by the professional hired by City staff (about $70k spent on experts while Murray says “no cost to General Fund”) the study states very clearly that while residents WANT a center they are not willing to PAY FOR one. This is consistent with what we know of all other centers. They don’t break even. So there is reasonable concern for how the ongoing operation of a center will be funded, beyond the concern for fundraising that has not been going well. Yet not ONE report to the public even attempts to address the ongoing operations cost of the center. This kind of magic thinking is how Anaheim got into the trouble it is in today. Recently Jordan Brandman admitted in a public meeting he had NO IDEA how Anaheim would cover the obligations of the pension liability he was approving at the time, he simply believed Anaheim would find a way, because, “we are Anaheim.” I wish our City leaders had the same belief in Anaheim when it comes to luring hoteliers without having to pay for their presence. To claim we have to PAY profit chasing hoteliers to come take advantage of 23 million visitors per year but the funding to operate a performing arts center will magically appear without addressing the issue is bizarre.
Speaking of magical thinking, how was this not incorporated into the Convention Center expansion? Since the CC is already losing money we may as well get a community benefit from that loss. I would still have preferred we send the bonds to voters but I would have helped promote the bonds to those voters if we got a performing arts center built into the Convention Center.
While claiming no cost to the General Fund, tearing down the Grove to make way for a performing arts center IS a cost to the GF, and the Grove is one of the few enterprise businesses the City runs that MAKES MONEY. Now we kiss that good-bye for a charitable project anticipated to LOSE money. Yet there is NO mention of that loss to the General Fund. What do we cut from the City’s budget to make up the millions lost from the Grove?
To that end, WHO decided the site of the Grove was the best place for this project? Initially, I thought the center would USE the Grove, but when asking around I discovered the logistics of the Grove don’t work in terms of scenery, equipment, and offstage production issues. (I did do some homework) so if we are not using the Grove, why not select a site that does not demolish the Grove? The “study” by the City’s “expert” only surveyed residents in the north county area to ask about their support of the idea, and what types of performances they would attend. Nobody has ever addressed WHY that location was chosen, given the extreme difficulty of traffic and parking on game and event days, and the loss of revenue from a profitable venture, or WHY the Foundation was chosen, given that there does not appear to be any expertise in building nor operating a performing arts center within the Foundation’s governing body. I am not in any way dismissing the passion of those involved in the Foundation, but with something of this size we need more than passion, we need those with a background in real estate development and major funding, plus the expertise for selecting experts in highly specialized architecture, acoustics, and the latest in performing arts technology, etc. Not to mention the business of running the center once built, another highly specialized field. Where will this come from? Nobody has told the public yet.
There appears to be some disconnect in the storyline. A recent interview quoted Lucille Kring claiming the Anaheim Ballet and OC Symphony will also use this location. Yet the Ballet and OCS are NOT involved in the effort with the Foundation. Even during the Council meeting when Council asked Dorothy Rose if the OCS is involved, she admitted no they are not. The Rosenbergs had at one time been involved and are not now. I won’t pretend to know what the back story is, but it does NOT appear that all the arts some believe to be involved are actually one big happy family, and when Council offers a story that is inconsistent with known reality, it has ALWAYS led to disaster for the taxpayers. Forgive my suspicions here. But it is one more area where reality smacks hard against the fairy tale being presented.
Speaking of the Ballet and OCS…those with a passion for something will simply DO IT. They simply can’t NOT do it. That is why we find the OCS playing for a small crowd of devoted music lovers in a high school auditorium for $20 tickets. That is why we find the Ballet performing anywhere they are invited. They are DOING, despite not having the optimal locations, because their passion does not allow them NOT to do it. Where are the performances by the Foundation? Even nominal performances would allow the Foundation to build a subscriber base as the OCS and Ballet are doing currently. So is there passion for the work or simply passion for the IDEA of running a performing arts center? I don’t know the answer to that. I only know I don’t see anything produced by the Foundation other than fund raisers that have not raised adequate funds, and as a taxpayer I am entitled to question the commitment of public resources to this, even when my respect for the Knohls would NEVER question their integrity or commitment to the cause of the community.
I hope that came across as respectfully as I intended. I do not question the Knohls. I very, very much question the elected leaders and staff involved. And as someone likely to be one of the first subscribers to this venture should it come to pass, I would caution the Knohls to question staff and elected leaders who are ALSO not asking these questions. Asking basic due diligence questions is not harmful to the Foundation or its purpose. Instead, questions help the Foundation better understand the obstacles that must be overcome in order to be successful, and being successful is something I think we all want to see happen. The fact that staff and elected leaders tasked with conducting this due diligence have not bothered is not indicative of their belief in the success of the project, I fear it is indicative of their having other purposes for the project that may be at odds with its success, or at least its success as defined by the agreement seen in the last Council meeting.
I wish you all the luck in the world, especially if you promise a really good production of Scarlet Pimpernel, and my family stands ready to support that effort. But as a taxpayer, I would like some answers, and clearly I am far from alone in that demand for accountability. I suggest someone go get those answers so we can all support a great project and see it through, on a location that has been selected for its accessibility and function and not for someone’s back room deal entirely outside the efforts of the Knohls and the Foundation. Anaheim DESERVES a performing arts center where we CAN support the Ballet and the OCS and watch adult males prance in satin waistcoats singing “that is why the Lord created men.”
Respect my foot.
Respect is waiting two weeks to get this approved.
Respect is earned.
Not their fault the Council does what they do.
Ryan is right. They knew what was happening and knew that if they didn’t get locked into something they wouldn’t have the City (us) tied down to something – anything. They’re not innocents.
Now the City’s support will is begrudged and there are probably more angry people than supporters. So that was dumb, too.
Frankly, I don’t think that we are as yet in a position to know what they know about anything related to the suspicious aspects of this deal. For now, I’m inclined to join Cynthia in giving them the benefit of the doubt.
In the short term, what I’m interrsted in is hearing specifically what Dr. Knohl asserts is inaccurate about this report. Again, I see no necessary contradiction between the prospect that they have been working in good faith since 2009 towards what at least Cynthia and I think may be a decent project (albeit one requiring public subsidy) and the notion that their goodwill may have been hijacked by those whose interest is simply to tie up any decisions about what to do with the most desirable part of the Stadium grounds until Mayor Tait is safely out of office.
I fear that Dr. Knohl may not want to return here and explain these purported inaccuracies if we paint him as a directly and knowingly involved from the outset in someone else’s possible malfeasance.
(A note to Dr. Knohl: we who you see writing here are not a well-regulated and secretive group, unlike those who suddenly plopped your proposal onto the City Council agenda at the last meeting of the outgoing regime at its last regular meeting. We tend, as you see here, to talk things out in the open. Please don’t take our bluntness as a personal affront; we’ve found that, in dealing with the studied and aggressive opacity of the City government, having open disagreements with a variety of viewpoints has its benefits. I hope that someone warned you that someone might take a critical interest in your proposal! Otherwise, you were cruelly used.)
You two of ALL people are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt?
You can’t be serious.
Well, it is the holiday season, so maybe you’re feeling generous.
Anyway, to the Knohls, you did your community a real disservice by allowing Murray, Kring, and Brandman to put their dirty finger prints on this. You’d have considerably more credibility with this blog (not that I’m pretending that matters) if you’d negotiated for custody of a major city asset with a properly elected council with a mandate to govern.
Sliding this by with a lame duck majority stinks.
I hope the aroma of your future project improves considerably, but once you’ve run over a skunk, it tends to stick around for awhile.
The benefit of this doubt applies to (1) whether they know the history of this particular site and why a proposal such as this immediate snaps all of our antennae to attention and (2) whether they simply docilely followed the lead of the City Manager and his crew in believing that bringing up this proposal at the outgoing Council’s final meeting was simply routine procedure, “how things are done here,” and should not lead to a gigantic blow-up with both observers and the new Council. In other words, they could have, for the most part, simply been used.
But please understand that, at least as I use the term “benefit of the doubt,” it’s merely a rebuttable presumption rather than (as you seem to think) a conclusion. (I suspect, without having asked, that the same is true of Cynthia.)
Dr. and Mrs. Knohl have earned the benefit of the doubt, and our respect, by being well-known members of the community who bust butt to donate time, resources (both financial and otherwise) and their passion to numerous causes that make life better for many of us. ( I LOVED the steampunk-Victorian art collection at MUZEO a few years ago, an exhibit that would NEVER have happened if the Knohls had not only sponsored much of it but loaned their own private collections that made up huge portions of the exhibit. I love my city, I don’t know that i would let MUZEO strip my walls and collection cases bare for a public exhibit. Thankfully in my case that would extend to a few inherited Botke works and some finger paintings from my kids.)
They do a great deal of that work quietly, without fanfare. They have been neighbors to one of Richard’s family members for decades, and I have heard nothing but good of them in all those years I have been heading up the steep slope of Calle Dana for family holidays, long, long before any of this prompted the need for character references.
As for timing, I think Council/City Manager understood what was at stake and slammed this onto the agenda in a hurry. Those who doubt this need only ask themselves what the odds are that applicants actually drive the timing of jack diddly at City Hall. That is on the City Manager who is answering to Kris Murray, and her panic at potentially losing a support base in her bid for the County Supe seat, and given her lack of popularity she needs every friend in Spitzer’s district she can get. The location of this sleight of hand is another issue, and we will get to the bottom of it.
But I am not going to include the Knohls in the list of those we are suspicious of. I believe they are good people trying to do a good thing for the community, and very likely getting as sucker punched as we all are. And i will respectfully ask my friends and colleagues to offer them that benefit of the doubt until someone has proof of reason not to, and not merely our own cynical outlook.
Thank you for holding judgment until facts can be determined.
CW
I don’t think there’s some vast conspiracy involved, but the Knohls’ idea is a sure-loser. Chapman University has opened an actual world-class performing arts center less than 3 miles away. Chapman has the expertise and fund-raising ability to pull it off. Why push out a profitable city enterprise to take a flyer on a performing arts center that can’t possibly compete with the Musco Center just a few minutes drive away?
I’m available at any time for further discussion with any and all who need to know the facts about the project. All who have contributed to the above dialog are invited to my home for that purpose. I will have my assistant contact each of you individually and set up meetings
Maybe Cynthia and/or Greg could interview you for this blog?
I’d think that Cynthia, Zenger, and I would make a good trio for this.
But I’d still like to know from Dr. Knohl what he asserts that we’ve gotten wrong. Leaving out context that he’d like to have seen is not “getting something wrong” unless that excluded context calls into question some of our assertions. (I can readily accept, for example, that the Knohl had discussions with some people from the City at different points over the past seven years — but that does not mitigate my concerns about the process.)
Dr. Knohl, I will send an email with my and Cynthia’s contact information, and then yours as well if he is interested, to the email address that as a company and your posts. Hopefully we could set this up for the near future.
Zenger, I think that you may be the resident expert who can answer this question: would the city have the right to use eminent domain to take the property on which The Catch is located and use that land for some sort of purpose related to this sort of enterprise? I would think that for a Performing Arts Center to be right on the corner might be somewhat preferable, if it has to go within that city block at all. Wouldn’t this seem feasible?
“Ryan Cantor
Posted December 6, 2016 at 6:25 PM
You two of ALL people are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt?
You can’t be serious.
Well, it is the holiday season, so maybe you’re feeling generous.
Anyway, to the Knohls, you did your community a real disservice by allowing Murray, Kring, and Brandman to put their dirty finger prints on this. You’d have considerably more credibility with this blog (not that I’m pretending that matters) if you’d negotiated for custody of a major city asset with a properly elected council with a mandate to govern.
Sliding this by with a lame duck majority stinks.
I hope the aroma of your future project improves considerably, but once you’ve run over a skunk, it tends to stick around for awhile.”
Ditto.
Also, Anaheim needs a “world-class” performing arts center like an aperture in the cranium. If there’s a market for middle-brow, off Broadway musicals I’d love to see the data.
Are you in for taking up Dr. Knohl on his invitation to meet? Ryan could generate the outrage but doesn’t have the same store of Anaheim-specific knowledge.
The “data” that they present on the taste for a Segerstrom Center sort of project in Anaheim is available. I think it’s either in the agenda packet or at a link somewhere above. (Cynthia alluded to it.) It’s people expressing their interest in attending various sorts of events. You may reply with “talk is cheap,” and you’d be right, but it’s still the sort of data often used to justify these sorts of projects.
My guess is that OC (and its surrounding areas) will remain wealthy enough that a performing arts center would be a decent bet — with the understanding that over time it might be likely to produce shows of interest to Korean and Chinese/Taiwanese immigrants of means — and if so we’d best not get in the way.
We’d have to go into such a project with the understanding that the market of our demographically changing county would determine what would show in years to come — and that it might well be shows that are less interesting to the likes of Cynthia, me, and the Knohls, but that would wow many of our newer residents. Choices about how such a site should be designed and operated would presumably need to have that in mind.
Greg, that is one HUGE problem, the study has never been made public, I as given a copy by Thy at Voice. Another case of staff referencing docs and not supplying them. It has become SOP at Anaheim. But again, NOT they fault of the Knohls. I’m not saying this is a good deal, I am saying the Knohls are not the ones pulling the scam.
Agreed. Check your email.
The other problem being who can afford season tickets.
Newport Beach is ten minutes from Segerstrom
Been on the 91W from Weir Canyon to Anaheim Stadium lately? It ain’t ten minutes.
Anyway, I digress. If someone or something wants to invest in the Arts in any city, great. I’m all for it. My opinion of feasibility shouldn’t damper their enthusiasm.
My issue is using a lame duck council to transfer custody of a major city asset with little to no public input.
That’s wrong. Period.
My $0.02.
And there we fully agree.
I do think that there’s an argument for making the site a bit north of Anaheim Stadium — specifically because the traffic on the way there is so bad. Something near the Lincoln exit off of the 57 (and I have nothing specific in mind) might help transform an entire area of the city.
I don’t understand the fetish of having EVERYTHING right in that small area in or near the Stadium. Honestly, enough people go to the Stadium District and they are pretty clearly not going to make use of ARTIC to the degree hoped. It’s almost like there’s a specific restaurant there that the City leaders want more people to attend.
If only there was a way to make traffic on Katella worse.
My primary concern is that this is being used for an ulterior purpose, and even if not, that eventually the city will get pulled in, and with the familiar refrain: “you can’t put a price tag on the arts,” the same phrase Murray uses to justify subsidizing Pringle’s fave toy, the idiotic Muzeo where soon they will be showing an exhibit of costumes from Downton Abbey®.
So, Zenger: are you up for a trip to the Hills or what? We would like your bitterly cold brand of skepticism to be represented in our delegation.
(I presume that you did see Dr. Knohl’s invitation to us a couple of top-level comments above this one’s thread.)
I would like very much to know who suggested Grove location. I guess we will find out when meeting Howard and Linda (or the lawyer they send?) but they are nice people and I want us to be respectful when asking those questions.
I used to think the “sinkin’ Lincoln” spot (now called Westgate) was a good place for a live theater, it would activate a long dead area and give better restaurants the reason needed to come into West Anaheim. I think a deal could be made with the developers who just got their long-awaited deal approved by Council, as they don’t seem to have a final plan yet. A performing arts center at Westgate would draw visitors up Beach Blvd from the Buena Park route if someone was looking for something more highbrow than the aging Rock n Roll celebrity investor brew place further north (what with Movieland Wax Museum gone) Beach Blvd could draw on the populations of BP’s Coyote Creek and La Palma or Cypress, places with stable economics and high education demographics. I would LOVE to see more enterprise projects tie in educational components like apprenticeships so we could teach Anaheim residents to be stagehands and props and costume people, lighting, sound techs, talk about union jobs with some decent pay (not going to pay for an enormous estate in Peralta Hills but it would give kids a better career track than the Resort’s dead end)
There are so many opportunities that Anaheim loses because nobody at City Hall wants to think outside the box and wonder “what if?” and when they DO think outside the box it is something like this that lacks transparency and basic due diligence by staff, and we end up killing it or moving on something that needed more work to make it great. God forbid we drafted an actual Strategic Plan and decide in advance where we want the City to go and quit running it by the seat of our pants based on some hinky project someone whispers into the ear of a Council member at a cocktail party (or fundraiser.)
Anyway, again none of us are in charge of jack diddly so the proposals are fun but we don’t get to make these calls so not sure how productive a use of time this is.
I think we all agree the project itself has issues. That does not mean I don’t support the concept, but personally supporting it and thinking this is the right project on the right spot with the right group is not the same, and if done with public real estate it deserves a whole Hell of a lot more scrutiny than it has had.
My ONLY goal in reacting to this thread was to make sure the Knohls are not included in the mud throwing (especially when some in our company load our mud pies with rocks on occasion.) By all means, this is a gift of public land, critique to your hearts’ content, but keep the blame where it belongs, solidly within City Hall, and leave out nice people trying to do a good thing for the community.
Carry on.
Yes Greg I saw email, was away all day.
Mr. Zenger, you CAN’T put a price on art.
BTW- I am seriously stoked about the Downton exhibit. While I have issues with the poor stewardship of the Pringle-run Board, the Steampunk and Victorian exhibit was awesome. The upcoming Downton exhibit is the ONLY west coast showing on the tour. Even for those like me who stopped watching the show when that bastard dragged Anna Bates into a back room, the sets and costumes are perfectly researched and executed, and often use portions of actual period garments too damaged to be worn without alteration, and that is a learning experience for a history nerd like me that is well worth the price of admission. I may well volunteer over there as they are in need of docents and my history gig is cancelled this year thanks to the City cluster of construction timing they can’t seem to get under control. The exhibits at Muzeo are pretty good.
Is it worth the enormous public bucks the City gives the Board without oversight? I don’t want Mr. “200MM ARTIC” Pringle running a popsicle stand at this point. It especially bugs that there is ZERO accountability over there. While the place is publicly funded there is no posting of Board meeting agendas, minutes, etc. The process for electing or appointing Board members in unknown. it is The Curtser’s private feifdom, and needs examining, like everything else concocted in Anaheim since 2002. But the exhibits are pretty decent and some are outstanding for the type of regional museum we have. Again, let’s not lump the hard working people who make MUZEO happen in with the pay to play of Curt’s leadership and game playing with public funds. And similarly, if public land is up for the performing arts center, we have a right and a RESPONSIBILITY to look long and hard at the deal before committing to that land. We also need to look at the agreement itself and make sure we have not locked up high-value real estate prior to making a deal with Moreno that could benefit all of us (as long as we move really, really fast before Disney buys back their Council AND a Mayor in 2018!)
So much to investigate, so little time.
“Mr. Zenger, you CAN’T put a price on art.”
Of course you can. A painter does every time he sells a picture. A collector does it every time he buys one.
Bald abstractions without applied pragmatism will lead one down the proverbial garden path every time.
I’m waiting for “The History of Chocolate” to return.