We hope our Mayor is not complicit in Arte’s Shaikin Shakedown,
because we don’t need a Shaikin-Aitken Shakedown.
And this new Anaheim Council likes to stress over “Shakedowns!” Did you guys see this article last week in the LA Times, under the byline of sports columnist Bill Shaikin? Published Monday March 20, it was entitled “Column: The First Two Stadium Deals Collapsed. Why would the Angels and Anaheim Try Again?”
Most of my friends’ angst has focused on the quotes at the end from Mayor Ashleigh Aitken:
“Aitken said she was ‘not committed’ to that [2019 Sidhu] plan, although she said she would be willing to consider it as a basis to start talks with the Angels. ‘I will be very happy to talk to them and do a current analysis of the deal and see,’ she said. ‘I bet we have more common ground than we disagree on.’”
That sounds awful close to Ashleigh having second thoughts, and coming to terms, with a giveaway she called a “corrupt, no-bid deal” back when she was campaigning. And maybe she did say exactly this, and no context would help. But this does come at the end of a Shaikin piece that could have practically been written by Arte’s publicists, and it’s clear that Shaikin was trying to get that answer out of her.
Who knew that Mr. Shaikin was such an Arte shill? We sat with him at the Brown Act hearings, and his pieces back then seemed objective. I’m gonna point out lots of false and questionable claims he wrote in this piece, but before we do that, I believe there’s an Elephant In The Room:
Yeah, what ABOUT the Surplus Land Act? Doesn’t the Surplus Land Act, which threw a major wrench into the Giveaway last time, pretty much make any similar negotiations moot? I would think so!
But anyway, back to the Times piece, in which Shaikin (or Arte) tries to convince us that the 2019 giveaway hammered out between Sidhu and Arte was just great:
“…The dead deal would have accomplished a raft of city objectives.”
A raft? What constitutes a raft? Arte-Shaikin obliges here:
“The city would have been out of the stadium business, in which it was not making money. The Angels would have picked up the costs of renovating the stadium, or building a new one.”
This is, like, what they call an old CANARD, isn’t it? We all know we were never “in the stadium business,” and never on the hook for renovation costs, under the terms of the current lease. Am I wrong? More raft:
“The city would have generated a projected $652 million in tax revenue over 30 years from development, the costs of which would be borne by Moreno and/or development partners. The Angels would have pledged to play in Anaheim through 2050. The city would have gained more than 6,000 new homes. And, after the city agreed to sell land valued at $325 million to Moreno for $150 million, Moreno later agreed to pay $96 million toward the construction of affordable housing elsewhere in Anaheim.”
How much of this is BS, exaggeration, simplification? Questions begged: How was the land valued at the bargain basement price of $325 million? How did THAT get magically halved to $150 million? And that $96 million construction promise was out of the goodness of Arte’s heart, it sounds like?
After naming off many of the numerous problems facing the Sidhu Giveaway, Arte-Shaikin allows that
“Those are a lot of complications. There would be many more if the city and the Angels started negotiations from scratch.”
Really? There would be “many more” complications if we started from scratch? It’s a long piece, but Arte-Shaikin never deigns to name what those NEW “complications” would be. Kind of an important assertion to back up, I’d think.
“Perhaps the city ought to put the deal that died last year back on the table, this time with transparency, and with public hearings…”
…bla bla bla. Transparency being the shorthand for letting the public know each detail of how we are being ripped off, as though Sidhu’s secrecy was the biggest problem.
“[Arte] declined to say whether he would consider a third round of stadium negotiations with a city that twice within the past decade told him he had a deal.”
“Twice within the past decade?” You mean, Arte is still bitter about the 2013-14 $1-a-year thing falling through? That was never finalized, thanks to Mayor Tait, so nobody authoritative ever told him he “had a deal.”
Shaikin spends many paragraphs relaying threats from Arte meant to strike fear into the hearts of Angels-loving Anaheimers: He could still pack up and take the team any time he wants, or sell the team to someone even worse, and he doesn’t have to build jack shit, Angels fans can just walk over to OC Vibe. Ashleigh helps him with those threats by providing the quote “I can’t imagine a future in Anaheim without the Angels.”
Rather than speculate over Shaikin’s motivation in becoming Arte’s mouthpiece, we should read this Times piece as a statement straight from Arte, with all its threats and its desire to re-instate the Sidhu Giveaway deal. This is the latest of an endless string of Arte Shoes to Drop. He is forever dropping shoes. He has lots of shoes. He’s a billionaire. He has more shoes than Imelda Marcos.
We’re all used to him periodically threatening to take his team out of Anaheim, which was never gonna happen. After last year’s scandals he said he was gonna sell the team, but nobody cared. Then a couple months ago he said he changed his mind, he wasn’t gonna sell it even though he coulda made a record 3 BILLION. Everyone said whatever, what’s he up to now? And now we see that he’s trying to pressure us into re-instating Sidhu’s Giveaway. Anaheim is being bullied again by this billionaire, and we can only hope the new Council and Mayor are on our side.
Ashleigh’s focus appears to be managing public opinion about the job she’s doing. Unfortunately, as horrible as this scandal has been, I think we are still being viewed as a small vocal minority against corruption, compared to all the Angel fans who just want a winning team and couldn’t care less what it takes. That of course leaves the door open for an attempt at a “transparent” robbery which Aitken can try to spin as a “win” for fans and residents for votes in time for her re-election campaign.
My opinion after conferring with others as well, is that we need to make it clear now, that what she is doing is completely unacceptable. It’s disingenuous and irresponsible for our Mayor who understands the law better than most, to continue to address this matter in public without bringing the weight of the scandal to bear. Also, speaking to any possibility of a sale until the full investigation has concluded is jeopardizing any credibility or good will that remained with us. I also have not heard her talk about affordable housing since her election so as I see it, the Surplus Land Act is currently the elephant in the room, so she should be pressed about her statements and made to account for them.
There’s a deep schism in Anaheim between politically-involved residents fighting for true accountability and reform, and politicians elected with corporate money who appear to see us as nothing more than a hyper-vocal minority they haven’t really needed in order to get elected. They seem to prefer continuing to do only what is necessary for donors to their PR efforts, which is why we believe they will continue to stifle efforts for campaign reform or a gate tax. If the only way to get their attention is with something they want, then maybe the squeaky clean images they are attempting to curate, or the voters they are attempting to lull are what we should inform them we will begin going after. Maybe they’ll begin to listen when we let them know we will resume awakening residents door to door to some ugly truths about them and what they are intending to do.
This Council sure keeps us on our toes… Several of us asked the Mayor for a clarification of her Times comments, and that never came. But what did come is a new plan from Natalie Meeks to try to cover up the JL Group corruption investigation. It’s been clear for two months that Meeks, in particular, is terrified of this report’s “hurting good people” if it is made public. Feb 7 and Feb 28 she questioned the investigators at length on that topic. And at the very end of last night’s meeting, she suddenly comes up with this:
Meeks: We spoke a little bit about the JL Group, and I would like to agendize how and, that report, or part of that report will be released, I know that previous Council voted to release that, but we have been advised by Judge Smith that that could present liability issues to the City, and he has advised both in writing and verbally when he was here, that the city should reconsider and NOT release the report, so I would like to have a Council discussion as to, uh, how we can release information or findings to the public with still protecting the City’s liability on that, can we agendize that?
(City Manager clarifies that it’ll be at some future meeting, not next week April 4.)
Meeks: Yes. My feeling is that we need to do that before the report is complete, so that we’ll approach it from a neutral perspective. We don’t know what the findings are, but we need to have a plan to do that in a way that protects the City from liability. Um, but still presents the public with findings on, you know, what needs to change in the City, or whatever those things are, okay?
https://anaheim.granicus.com/player/clip/2966?view_id=2&redirect=true&h=1796e279572f006210bc11ba5e5e7e61
Go to 2:18:50
None of us heard Judge Clay Smith say any such thing. We are scouring the Feb 28 tape right now. He did make one small comment that really takes herculean effort and imagination to blow up into “We should NOT release the report to the public.” I’ll find it by tomorrow. Meeks is terrified and a liar; this comes after Smith & JL are ordered not to talk to the press; but Smith needs to be notified how his words are being twisted in order to bury the report.
Two more thoughts: The only thing Meeks is happy to share with the public is “findings on, you know, what needs to change in the City, or whatever those things are, okay?”
And if this shit finally does come to Council discussion, I’d really like to know what other Councilmembers would have her back. I’d hope, none.
As I said at the meeting itself: Natalie Meeks should be excusing herself from participation in these discussions, as she is a potential target of the JL investigation. (Whether they are looking into ARTIC, the Streetcar, and all is of course unclear. But they should be.)
Anyone who votes with her on what looks like a plan to ensure that she cannot face liability, politically or otherwise, is potentially asking for much bigger trouble than they should be willing to endure.
It’s like being told that to run in the race a good starting place for you IS THE BACK OF THE DAMN PACK and that you can negotiate your way forward. Only a fucking idiot would go down that lonesome path again. And again.
Sounds like the article was scribbled by a rodent in Arte’s pocket.
Meeks is just running interference for her pals. “Good people” have nothing to worry about. Pringle? The Chamber of Scams? Maybe they do.
Of course the Surplus Land Act applies, that’s why they tried to illegally ram the sale through before it became effective. A more important question for me is why sell at all? Sidhu wanted to fund “Anaheim First” projects, Arte wanted multimillion profits, but what resident need justifies a sale at a discounted price while the land is encumbered with the lease? If any such justification can be made, why not issue bonds maturing at lease termination to get money?
You are, once again, a godsend. But now we need to be on the lookout for any legislative actions (or even executive orders?) that might modify the Surplus Land Act.
And that is a big reason why J&L — and/or Bonta, and/or the FBI — has to be looking into their previous attempted evasion of the SLA’s provisions.
If anyone hears about Moreno (or Disney?) is trying to muscle anyone into an exemption to the SLA, drop a note to Vern.
The State has twice rejected Anaheim’s Housing Element as inadequate. Our numbers make even HB’s numbers look good. If the City really wants to provide housing opportunities affordable to its residents and their children, why not rezone all or part of the stadium land for affordable development now? That would satiate the State and simplify any future Land Act sale.
Bill and Dan have a lot in common.
What’s that?
Well, check out the commenter’s pseudonym. For you in particular, this is a fastball right down the middle.
Truth be told, I found this comment in “spam,” I don’t know how it got there – that’s almost always robot-generated stuff with nonsensical text and lotsa links. And I was so not expecting that comment that my hand deleted it right as I read it. So I logged off and tried to recreate it as best I could remember.
I was trying to elicit a more fun addendum.
I hope that person returns and I hope I remembered their sentence correctly!
More fun than “The Business of Baseball”? As if that were possible!
The OTHER Natalie, the one of the Rubalcava variety, gratuitously insulted JL a few times during the 3/28 meeting – when they had nothing to do with the topic at hand. She even tried to cue up Meeks for a one-two punch on em but the latter was not on her toes. Mayor AA defended the investigators from the weird attack.
In any case it looks like the two Natalies have gotten together and are trying to figure out how to stop, or bury, this investigation. And that’ll be my next piece. But meanwhile our friend Fred has made a video (Meeks doesn’t come up till the end)
The Meeks flopsweat comes at 11:49.
I give the mayor the benefit of the doubt. She says she hasn’t ever met with Moreno ( as of today-3-31-23) or discussed past or future stadium “deals” with Moreno/ Angels.
I suggest the city complete the entitlements for the previous development plans ( the ones that Moreno almost completed) which will greatly enhance the value of the property.
Then the city should negotiate a new deal to sell Moreno the stadium and some of the land and sell the remainder of the land for market rate to another developer. This should net the city about $1Billion !!
In the previous deal, Moreno was getting the Stadium and the Grove FOR FREE.
In the existing lease ( Paragraph 8) the city has the right to develop 45 acres of the Stadium parking lot near the Grove and former train station.
I’d really like to wait for a new owner — which MLB should be willing to provide.
Well, I called that one! The minute they approved the additional funding for the investigation that night I predicted some (not all) will try to bury the report. If the report never sees the light of day, then they don’t care whether it outs them or not.
I am too old for this shit.
Good to see you Cynthia. This is more the story you’re referring to…
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2023/03/natalie-meeks-plots-to-bury-corruption-report/