.
.
.
Graphic from the seventh of a series of posts that began Sept. 1, 2013 and ended on Sept. 4.
[Reprinted from Facebook, on the event of the publication of the LA Times story “Angels to stay in Anaheim through at least 2029“.]
In the late afternoon and evening of August 30, 2013, a loose confederation of people who had been talking about starting a civic watchdog organization in Anaheim were galvanized by an agenda item announcing that, as part of renewing the Los Angeles* Angels lease at what had been Anaheim Stadium, the City proposed granting a brand new corporation wholly owned by Angels owner Arte Moreno the right to lease and develop about 150 acres around the Stadium — and to keep the proceeds. That it was to be a lease rather than a sale meant that they would not even pay property taxes on this extremely valuable parcel.
August 30 was the Friday before Labor Day. The Council meeting was set for Tuesday September 3. Many people who cared about these issues were out of town for the last big holiday weekend of the summer. Three who weren’t were Anaheim residents Brian Neil Chuchua, Cynthia Ward, and me. (I live about ten miles north of Anaheim, but had been asked early the previous year — before I knew either Brian or Cynthia — to use my legal and persuasive skills to speak on behalf of Anaheim residents who needed people — including those from out of town who would not be readily subject to retaliation by the city — to speak on their behalf.)
Brian was already well aware of the Angels Lease negotiations and had asked me to speak to the Council about them some months before, which I did. I had met Cynthia in early March 2013. We were united in the belief that massive giveaways — tax abatements, tax rebates, subsidies, and one-sided leases, almost entirely within the Resort District — were going to destroy the ability of future City Councils to raise money in future years when Anaheim would likely be poorer and would need it most. And we shared admiration for Anaheim’s Mayor, Republican Tom Tait, who — first with Democrat Lorri Galloway and later by himself — was the only Council member to oppose them.
So when the proposed deal for the Angels Stadium Grounds came about, we did our best to organize opposition to it that would begin at (and ideally run out the clock at) the upcoming meeting. Some of that opposition involved the already assembled nucleus (Cynthia, Brian, and me) of the nonprofit group that a week later would become the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility (or “CATER”); some involved people involved within Vern Nelson’s political “Orange Juice Blog,” which I helped manage and where Cynthia sometimes wrote. (Cynthia and I were, of course, involved in both.)
September 2013 was chaotic, as the Council rammed through approval of the leases on September 3, reiterated that approval on September 24, and retaliated grievously against Mayor Tait on the 30th. CATER was formed, actively working on preparing litigation, and became more or less the sole institution fighting alongside the Mayor over this issue. One theme we kept pressing was that there was NO NEED to make a deal with the Angels in haste, without adequate study (no one knew how much the parcel was worth and its advocates on the Council wanted to prevent us from finding out) and public debate, because the Angels already had an exceptionally sweet deal from the City and there was no significant likelihood of their breaking the leads no matter WHAT Anaheim did, even if they didn’t get this 150 acres (eventually valued at a bit over $200 million, if memory serves.)
While some people have kept insisting that we were were wrong in our desire to save the $200 million or more in the City of Anaheim’s largest solely owned property holding — we were confident that we were right. Our efforts to get to the bottom of the facts in this case have led to over three years of litigation against the city, the last portions of which are ONLY NOW on the verge of being settled. And, today, the Angels in effect agreed with us. They weren’t going to leave the area, and no one was going to give them anywhere near as sweet a deal as Anaheim already had.
Primary credit for preventing the Stadium Lot Giveaway belongs to Mayor Tait — who squandered most of his two terms fighting with the former Council majority before winning the Council majority last December — and his aide Mishal Montgomery. But the Mayor has said repeatedly that he could not have won that victory without the pressure put on by Brian and Cynthia, and by me and Vern, along with others who I won’t mention here for fear of causing them grief. And we’ve had several moral victories — and, in conjunction with others, several substantive ones — since then. And I’m happy not only to feel that I put my brain and my muscles to good use, and not only to now being vindicated, but also to have been led on the path to making so many good friends in the effort to fix Anaheim.
Congratulations to your team! Mayor Tait and your volunteer efforts staved off the great Anaheim raid.
How about printing a compendium of all of the doom and gloom comments about the Angels leaving. You know Kring,Murray and Brandman from the dais and how about all those pearls from the Chamber etc?
Excellent idea! (Um, can you send us an interm?)
Seriously, if anyone out there would like to get their blogging merit badge, this is a pretty straightforward (if time-intensive) assignment!
And of course all of Dan Chmielewski’s “business of baseball” analysis!
You just don’t understand, Vern. You Cubans know nothing about baseball.
Excellent retelling. We must savor our victories!
Tentatively, Cynthia will be writing her own more detailed take on this development. That will be the one for the archives.
What a shocker! Who in the world could have foreseen this?
Now maybe the City can get tough about all that deferred maintenance caused by our tenant.
Some .250 batting second baseman or 5.80 ERA middle reliever might have to take a bit of a haircut.
Yep. I didn’t feel that this was the place for it, but as the crux of the disagreement between the Angels and the City does involve whether the Angels are being irresponsible for maintenance and repair or the City is being delinquent about promised upgrades, this would be an excellent time to hash all of that out.
It could be part of taking a close look at what’s actually going on with the City’s other contracts….
We are all on the same page here…I should have that up today. Hang tight.
Don’t forget to have some fun with the Wordsmith and Lil’ Business of Baseballski and Charles Black who kept nattering about how the Angels had dozens, hundreds, millions of options when in reality they had NONE – even after Murray, Kring and brandman gave them an additional 3 years (for free) to screw us.
That still remains the single worst thing I have ever seen in government.
Don’t forget the two big Chamber-organized campaign rallies for Mayor Lucille with the Big A backdrop! The free “Keep the Angels” teeshirts! The Chamber-sponsored “Keep the Angels” Facebook page that quickly banned any dissenting voices! (Me, you, Ryan, Jason Young.) Kris Murray going on the radio to tell the world that Mayor Tait really wanted the Angels to leave so he could profit off some nearby property!
There are STILL know-nothings out there (whom I met walking precincts) who hate the Mayor because they heard, from what they considered reliable sources, that he tried to get rid of the Angels for his own personal profit.
Milo the Irvine troll must be beside himself
I am working on a write-up, combining the timeline of their misdeeds on this scam with the transcript AND what we learned in the CPRA lawsuit and the additional docs we forced from them over the last 3 years of ugly litigation. Honestly, I just get angry all over again reading the early days of this. When you see it all together I don’t know how one does not come to the conclusion someone made one Helluva back room deal that some key figures were in on and it all went sideways when the public found out and they lacked the political stones to go through with it. So as I work on that, enjoy a snippet or two of either raw ignorance or a conscience-free grab at public resources. OH AND THANK YOU AGAIN BBox, for the transcript!
September 3, 2013
02:59:11 Kris Murray: We’re not making a decision tonight for everyone’s benefit other than to extend–the only binding thing in front of us is to extend the opt-out. So, let’s talk about that for a minute.
2:59:30
For the number of eloquent speakers who came forward tonight and stated that there is zero chance the Angels will leave, there is zero concern for the city, that we’re losing leverage by extending the opt-out, well if there is zero chance of them leaving then what is the concern with extending the opt-out so that we can maintain the current terms?
To maintain the city for our ..our… our city and our citizens and the economic value for an additional three years? And, bonus! We’re able to come to the table without any pressures on either party to thoughtfully negotiate all of the terms.
And I would ask the City Manager to ensure that we have–and I want to thank you as well, you and your staff, for immediately putting up– the website, the information on the website–all of this information is available, for everyone to discern, and to review, the details, if you haven’t had a chance to do so yet, and I look forward to us enhancing that, there is tremendous opportunity to weigh in, and again, none of the items that are in the framework are binding, it is part of a negotiation, a negotiation has to start somewhere, and that is the role before us tonight I believe that it actually does add value, the experts who have spoken here tonight, who are experts in this industry, have stated that it has value, to extend the opt-out, that is the one and only item before us that is binding that is definitive.
The definitive final agreements that will come before Council after exhaustive public input, are quite a ways down the road, and we are looking forward to everybody’s input, and we are looking forward to creating the best possible agreement, uh-for the taxpayers and residents of Anaheim, as well as for the fans, and the organization of Angels baseball. We want the team in Anaheim, I will state that, I think I speak for most of Anaheim residents when I say that we want the team to remain here, and we certainly want the best economic deal, as part of that agreement, for the City, and all of the items that have been enumerated, as part of this framework, are again, just defining the starting point. So with that, I look forward to further dialog from my colleagues.
“…well if there is zero chance of them leaving then what is the concern with extending the opt-out so that we can maintain the current terms?”
Because that GIVES them a chance of moving, stupid. And that’s leverage in favor of the entity you are bargaining with. And you gave it away and got NOTHING in return.
An honest person can only conclude that there was some sort of conspiracy to defraud the public going on.
Wow, that’s what Kris Murray’s words look like when they’re written down? She says them with such a soothing, hypnotic and confident voice that people think they mean something!
OK, here is the one I know we were all looking for! Jordan, always good for the quote.
03:05:19 Jordan Brandman Thank you. Question- Mr. Black could you… I have a couple questions with regard to..the termination clause…. 2016… The Angels can activate that clause, and they can leave? in 2016? Tell us a little bit more about that.
03:05:42 CB Under the 1996 lease, they’re allowed to terminate the lease, without cause, by giving the City 12 months notice, and the effective date of that termination, would lie between October 15th of 2016, and February 15th of 2017, so in that 4 month… period.
03:06:02 JB So, if they sent a letter to the City, and they can only do it beginning in October of 2016, correct?
03:06:10 CB: Well, they need to provide you 12 months notice, at least 12 months notice, so, theoretically, they could send the notice today…
03:06:22 JB: But, well, that’s very interesting…So let’s say…
03:06:24 CB But they wouldn’t have to send the notice until 12 months prior..to uh,.. February 15, of 2017, that would be the last date they could send the notice, and still have the right.
03:06:37 JB So… they could send the letter…in October…. of 2015? and therefore, and they’re OK. That’s just very interesting…so…The Angels can send the termination letter by October of 2015, which means the termination would be in October-.the 12 month term would be operative in October of 2016, correct?
03:07:06 CB: That’s correct, but let me modify what you’ve said, slightly – They could send the notice as late as February 15, of 2016, and still be um 12 months prior to the last date to terminate.
03:07: 24 JB :So, they could, potentially, if they were to send it, in October of 2105 or by February of 2016, they could, theoretically, go play, baseball, in some other location in the LA Basin, by the April 2017 season? Is that correct?
03:07:53 CB Yes, opening day 2017 season.
03:07:55 JB: How long does it take to build a stadium, do you believe, in today’s market? in the parameters you talked about?
[Brandman is not asking for legal counsel, so far nobody has addressed Black as an attorney and Murray skipped him for Houston.]
03:08:06 CB From my personal experience, uh, you could design, and build a stadium, in about a 42 month period, that- that’s about 12 months to design, that’s fast – tracking it, but certainly is possible, and 30 months to build it. That’s about how long it took us to build PETCO Park. So 42 months is start to finish on design to opening .( CW note: Not counting CEQA and lawsuits, it took SD over a decade when you add those pesky impediments)
03:08:22 JB So Theoretically, if we didn’t move forward tonight, the Angels could activate their opt out, wait, activate their opt out at their leisure, probably …October of 2015 to February of 2016, and they could be …playing someplace else, by 2017?
03:09: 02 CB: I think it’s possible, but I will say though, you have to entitle these facilities, too, and so that’s going to take some time
03:09:09 JB Yes-But there is, they could play… they could either…stay here, on a year-to-year lease
03:09:15 CB ..or find a temporary venue.
03:09:16 JB or find a temporary venue
03:09:19 CB ..Which they’ve done before, as you all well know
03:09:22 JB Where did the Angels play, before they came to Anaheim?
03:09:26 CB Dodger Stadium
03:09:30 JB They played at Dodger Stadium, and the Dodgers play, half their season, the 81 games there of 162 games. How long was the season when they played there?
03:09:45 CB I think the season then was the same as it is now.
03:09:47 JB : Same.
03:09:48 JB So, just confirming what you said, there are places to go, both temporarily, and permanently, in the LA basin.
03:09:58 CB That’s correct.
03:10:02 JB Thank You.