Just kidding. He can TOTALLY believe it. He just can’t believe how much taxpayer money he’s being given — and for free!
BREAKING NEWS: Arte Moreno’s Demand for Keeping Angels in Anaheim Includes Curt Pringle’s First Born Child
OK, so that didn’t happen. But based on the current MoUs, one can’t but wonder — if Arte did make such a demand, would it be met?
The Anaheim City Council has worked diligently over the past few weeks knitting a rather large wool blanket. The latest attempt at hoodwinking comes in a new Facebook Page: Keep the Angels
This is a VERY interesting page. It makes gratuitous use of trademarked Angel logos and proprietary photos, is apparently well staffed at 8:30 on a Monday night (I made two rather benign replies, which were both removed inside of five minutes along with banning my user ID,) and the posts reveal insider access to negotiations surrounding the MOU.
Of course, this naturally begs the question, who’s running this page? The Angels? The council majority? The Chamber of Commerce? Think about that while reading this post. The page claims to be “grassroots”. Anyone else smell the horrible stench of astroturf? Someone got paid to do this. Someone should be getting a refund, too. I’ve seen plenty of bad turf jobs, but this is just sad.
A quick review on the current state of affairs: During the last city council meeting, the City of Anaheim approved two Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) outlining the terms of future negotiations for Anaheim Stadium and separately for the surrounding land. While not all of the terms are explicitly immediately binding, the city did make a commitment to negotiate in good faith — which for the sake of brevity means that Anaheim can’t just say “no” to any of the individual terms. The Council will discuss the recently approved MoU Tuesday night; both sides have mobilized their propaganda machines to pack the council chambers with their supporters.
“Keep the Angels” apparently seeks to make use of general ignorance related to the MoUs. Just take a quick look at a few comments attached to posts:
“I thought they were just changing the name?”
“What the hell, Anaheim. What are you thinking?”
“PLEASE DON’T TAKE AWAY THE ANGELS.”
How does one capitalize on ignorance exactly? Well, it’s actually not that hard. The formula is about 4000 years old:
1) Yell “FIRE!, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES OR YOU WILL ALL DIE!”
2) Get 10 of your friends to get up, scream, and run away.
3) Relentlessly mock the intelligence of those who question if there actually is a fire or the need to run away.
Let’s take a closer look at this in action. Keep the Angels was very busy today.
Post #1: “Special interests and politicians want to drive our Angels from their home in Anaheim. Don’t let them! Like us and stay tuned for updates on how you can help Keep the Angels!”
I’m sorry, who are these “Special interests”? Dodger fans? No one is trying to drive the Angels away. No. One. No one has made a motion calling for the Angels to leave; no one has circulated a petition calling Arte Moreno a douche bag; no one is organizing a villainous scheme to deprive greater Orange County of professional baseball as part of their secret plan to take over the world.
Post #2: “In case you think it can’t happen, remember, Anaheim and Orange County used to have an NFL team too. Other cities will give the Angels hundreds of millions to move. Don’t let this happen!”
Really? Hundreds of millions? Do we have an offer from another city? If so, let’s see it, because I’m pretty sure that breaks about 50 rules in both MLB’s anti-trust waiver and the MLB operating agreement. We’re talking big time fines.
No one is going to give the Angels hundreds of millions to move. No. One. Why? The Angels have one of the best television contracts in the business. They can’t move outside of LA. If they stay within their designated marketing zone (southern California, north of San Diego), any stadium that they want to build has to go through the CEQA permitting process. For something that big, we’re looking at a decade for an approval. This statement by Keep the Angels is a lie. It’s the functional equivalent of yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Step one complete.
Post #3: “Wow, already almost 900 likes. Thank you Angels fans! Let’s spread the word and help us keep our Angels! Please share this page with your friends and ask them to like it too. More news soon including how you can help Keep The Angels!”
And there we go. There are their 10 friends screaming and running out of the theater. Next up, mockery.
Post #4 “Here are some key facts on what is going on with the City of Anaheim and Angels Baseball. #1 – The Angels have the right to opt out of Angels Stadium in 2016, with one year notice. The negotiations underway would extend the lease to 2057. That’s 45 more years on Angels baseball in Anaheim!”
Well geez, who wouldn’t want to do that? <– Begin mockery.
But wait a minute . . .45 more years? That doesn’t sound right . . .
That’s because it isn’t right. The Angels have the unilateral right to abandon the contract, without penalty, in 2019, 2037, 2043, and 2051. So . . . that’s not 45 more years of Angel baseball in Anaheim. It’s 7. Since the existing contract expires in 2016, it’s really only 3.
3 vs. 45. Big difference.
Post #5: “Fact #2 – Angels Stadium needs almost $150 million in upgrades. It is one of the oldest stadiums in Major League Baseball. In the current lease, it is not clear who is responsible for paying that $150 million, but if the Angels leave, then Anaheim is left with an empty stadium that needs $150 million in upgrades. We all know no team would come here unless the taxpayers paid the $150 million. In the last two decades, the average public subsidy for a baseball stadium has been 60%. Under the terms being negotiated with the City and the Angels, the Angels would agree to take on this $150 million. That is a good deal for taxpayers!”
Oh, no! If they leave . . . then what will we do with an empty stadium? I mean, jeez, all that vacant land in Southern California . . what could we possibly build? Oh, right . . . ANYTHING. That’s a separate discussion for another blog post.
For now, let’s look at this rotten egg from Facebook. Let’s assume they’re right. If Anaheim is to be consistent with other MLB hosts, Anaheim should pony up 60% of $150MM, or $90MM. Remember that number. $90MM. That’s what they claim is fair.
Anyway, they’ll leave if we don’t give them something! Give them something! Anything! THIS IS A GOOD DEAL! If you don’t approve, you’ll burn us all alive! Mock mock mock!
Post #6: “Fact #3 – the City has been trying to get someone to develop part of the parking lot around the stadium for almost 20 years. No one has been willing to do so, in part because the lease with the baseball team has required any developer to pay for a parking structure to replace any surface parking taken by the development. That would cost $100 million or more, maybe as much as $150 million. But if it is the Angels developing the entertainment and restaurant district around the Stadium, it starts to make sense. At stadiums around the country, there are really cool shopping and entertainment and dining districts right next to the Stadium. We can finally have that in Anaheim under the deal being negotiated. This would also bring thousands of jobs and tens or hundreds of millions of economic activity to Orange County, generating a lot of tax revenue to pay for city services.”
Whoa whoa whoa. No one wants to develop the land because of the terms and conditions in the existing lease, so we have to change the lease to giveaway the land to the Angels so they can develop it? What kind of crazy backwards world is this? If no one wants to develop the land, THEN CHANGE THE LEASE SO THEY CAN DEVELOP THE LAND.
Note the additional mockery. If Anaheim doesn’t agree, we aren’t as cool as other cities and we turn down thousands of mythical magical jobs that spontaneously appear as if from no where and millions, excuse me hundreds of millions of dollars, of economic activity (that’s A LOT of beer.) In other words, we’re stupid if we don’t agree.
Post #7: “So the basic framework which would keep the Angels in Anaheim seems pretty simple to us. Anaheim gets the Angels to extend their lease for almost 50 years, the Angels agree to pay the $150 million in needed upgrades to the Stadium instead of the taxpayers, and the Angels develop part of the parking lot into a really cool shopping/dining/entertainment district which brings jobs and vitality to the Stadium area. A lot of details remain to be worked out, but the start of the negotiations seem like a great deal.”
Again, if you don’t agree, you’re an idiot, because this is simple. Compelling.
The basic framework is exactly the opposite of how Keep the Angels describes. Anaheim gets the Angels for 3 years, not 50. The Angels absolutely do NOT agree to spend $150MM in needed upgrades. By leasing and not selling public land, the taxpayers give away their right to collect property tax on land. They also give up any sales tax generated from the site as well and fees generated from parking and whatever else. They agree to provide economic assistance to developers in exchange for mythical magical economic benefit.
What the MoU actually states is that the Angels will agree to maintain Angel Stadium “to a standard to be agreed upon during negotiations.” Well, that’s pretty darn open ended. Considering we’ve given away the cow, we can’t exactly dictate terms to Arte on what that standard should be. It could be $150MM, it could be $5MM. It certainly won’t be the $900MM some other bloggers are suggesting for a brand new stadium.
Let’s consider for a moment what Keep the Angels conceded earlier. If Anaheim is to mirror what other MLB hosts have done in recent years, they need to contribute roughly $90MM to renovate Anaheim stadium, with the team contributing $60MM. What exactly are we paying? Let’s take a look at the MoU.
Hmmm . . . wait a minute . . there’s nothing here that monetizes the giveaway! You mean to tell me the Anaheim City Council voted to enter into good faith negotiations without understanding the value of the terms to be negotiated, without providing a compelling and transparent value for consideration before the taxpayers? No. I don’t believe it. Surely, surely somewhere in Anaheim someone can tell me what Anaheim agreed to bargain for?
Nope. Nada.
I know you’re as shocked as I am.
——–
The problem with the 4000 year old model of yelling fire and mocking those who don’t listen to you is that the people who ask legitimate questions don’t die a horrible fiery death in the end. Eventually, the myth floats away with the hot air that blew it in and the truth comes out.
If this is really a fantastic deal for the taxpayer, the combined MoUs (which actually aren’t linked, but lets assume they are . . . which is a horrible benefit to grant, but I’m doing it anyway) ought to be worth less than $90MM. Any dollar above is a bad deal; any dollar below is a good deal.
What’s the value of the parking lot lease? Is it more or less than $90MM. Let’s take a look.
The city’s analysis calls out 50 specific acres for a development area formerly known as Sportstown. The actual proposed ground lease is substantially greater than 50 acres (of note, there’s nothing in the MoU that binds the Angels to not develop the entire parking lot, we’ll have to assume they won’t because they’re either prohibited elsewhere or that it’s just bad for business.) but we’ll stick with 50 for simplicity.
That’s 50 acres of prime commercial real estate for the grand total sum of $1 a year. How much is that worth? Well, working backwards, $90MM over the term of 66 years is $1.37MM per year. That’s about $2300 an acre per month or roughly $0.05/sq ft (FYI, going rates for vacant land in the area? $0.12 to 0.44 per square foot.)
Does anyone out there REALLY want to try to sell the idea that Anaheim taxpayers are getting a good deal? Other MLB hosts: 60% of costs. Anaheim: we give away free land for two generations.
WOW.
Oh, but wait, it gets worse.
Not only do the Angels get the use of 50 acres, they get to develop it as they see fit. Here’s where it gets tricky. The city of Anaheim owns the land, which means it doesn’t pay property tax. This means the Angels get to develop the land, rent it to a tenant at market rates (making that value shoot way beyond the $0.05 they’re paying), all the while avoiding property tax payments that they rightfully owe to the county.
How much is that worth? I’m gonna throw a dart out there of a quarter billion dollars over the term of the lease. Anyone want to argue?
Oh, but wait again! It gets even worse!
The city is going to pay to develop the land for the Angels! We’re looking at “Gardenwalk Part Deux: Bend Over and Say Halo!” That’s right, the city agreed to provide economic assistance to develop the land. How much? Too be “negotiated” and “general fund neutral.” This means they uses fuzzy math, bad assumptions, and a ridiculous discount rate to extract as much as possible from the taxpayer before they get swatted. Kinda like a really big blood sucking mosquito that takes $150MM out of your wallet.
Here’s why the MoU doesn’t tell list how much it’s all worth. It’s too ridiculous to add up. Free land, free construction, no taxes . . . all for $1 a year over 66 years.
Average MLB host: $90 million. Anaheim: $850 million? $2 billion? Your guess is good as mine, but one thing is clear . . .
NOT A GOOD DEAL.
One more post from Keep the Angels:
Post #7: “On September 3, 2013, the Anaheim City Council voted 4-1 to begin negotiations with the Angels around this general framework. City Council Members Gale Eastman, Jordan Brandman, Lucille Kring, and Kris Murray voted for this framework. Mayor Tom Tait voted against it and has been trying to stir up opposition to the Angels.”
There is no fire and you aren’t stupid. The Angels aren’t going anywhere. If they do, well, the sky won’t fall.
I’m sure there’s no shortage of developers chomping at the bit to get to what’s essentially greenfield space with direct access to rail and three major freeways, a publicly owned power and water utility, 20 minutes from an airport, and with potentially direct tram access to both Disneyland and the California High Speed Rail project.
But, I guess you can always believe the city’s analysis that the surrounding land value just evaporates without the Angels. Yeah, on second that, no one would want a piece of land like that. Definitely not Disney.
Tell Eastman, Brandman, Kring, and Murray that their manufactured crisis is a joke and Anaheim wants its billion bucks back.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
UPDATE (by Greg Diamond):
This e-mail from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce has been going around.
Keep the Angels in Anaheim!
We need your attendance at a special Rally to Keep the Angels on Tuesday at 4:30 PM in front of Anaheim City Hall!
As you know, the Angels’ lease at Anaheim Stadium is up in the next few years, and the City and Angels Baseball are in negotiations to extend the lease. The Council has adopted a broad framework around which the City will negotiate with the Angels to extend the lease. Under that framework:
- The Angels will extend the lease to 2057, keeping the Angels in Anaheim for almost 50 years.
- The Angels will assume the obligation to pay for $150 million in needed upgrades to the Stadium, saving the taxpayers from having to pay.
- The Angels will partner with the City to develop a dining/entertainment/retail district next to the stadium similar to what we see around other major league stadiums. This development will bring thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity in Anaheim.
The City Council adopted this framework on a 4-1 vote with Council Members Gail Eastman, Kris Murray, Lucille Kring, and Jordan Brandman supporting the proposal and Mayor Tom Tait opposing it.
We have helped launch a new coalition, Keep the Angels, and will be fighting to support the framework adopted by the Council which we believe will keep the Angels in town and promote even more economic opportunity in our City. You can find out more about this coalition by visiting their website at www.KeepTheAngels.com or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/KeeptheAngels.
The Council will be discussing the Angels deal again at their Council Meeting on Tuesday, and we have scheduled a Rally to Keep the Angels before the City Council meeting to make it clear that we want to Keep the Angels in Anaheim.
The Angels have been a valuable partner in Anaheim for over 40 years. They have supported billions of dollars of commerce in Anaheim over the years, and perhaps even more importantly, brought joy and a sense of community to our city for all these years. They have also supported many, many charities in Anaheim in their time here.
Please join us and others from across our community at our Rally to Keep the Angels in Anaheim on Tuesday, at 4:30 PM at City Hall!
We at Orange Juice definitely think that everyone should show up to the rally — with signs saying what else Anaheim should be willing to give up in order to keep the Angels in (although not “of”) Anaheim. Be creative! Should they be given the Convention Center? Should Arte Moreno personally be given the Anaheim Hills? How about the municipal power company? Should the City raise taxes to pay for all this? No price is too great when it comes to keeping the Angels — right? City staffer (and former San Diego Padres President) Charlie Black said so!
There is no sucker like an addicted pro sports fan.
Can the Chamber please explain how they have been able to “help(ed) launch a new coalition, Keep the Angels”, when they apparently have no manpower or resources to COMPLETE the AUDIT of CITY FUNDS THEY HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED for processing Enterprise Zone Vouchers, overdue from June? What does this say about their management ability? Will there also be a PERFORMANCE audit, and if not, WHY?
Isn’t there some kind of legal question in the fact that the Chamber is taking bucketloads of city money with one hand, and then turning around to lobby the city in favor of questionable business deals on the other?
Essentially, the city is taking money that could be used to pay for libraries, playgrounds, and infrastructure improvements, and spending it on Matthew Cunningham and “Keep the Angels” T-shirts. Whatta deal!
Speaking of Cunningham, he is spewing the latest idiocy: The Angels could have moved before 2016. How you ask? By renting Angel Stadium while they build a new one somewhere else! In other words the scary outcome could have happened if the City itself facilitates his move by making it possible!
He is right to be concerned about his credibility.
Oh, I expect that this particular expenditure has been organized by some sort of “special contribution” from someone.
Look, in the long run, our victory here is that the Pringle Ring is leaving a trail of jaw-dropping misconduct worthy of a slasher movie all over the place. They’re doing all sorts of things that are in the public record and that they can’t undo. I wish they weren’t doing it — but if they’re doing it at least it’s good that it’s so over the top. Unless all of them plan on taking a plane to somewhere without an extradition treaty, they’re going to have to be around while authorities sort out the mess. The truth will out. However smart a Batman supervillain Pringle is, he’s surrounding himself with low-grade henchpersons.
I’m concerned that next year your average voter is just gonna know that Kris Murray, Gail Eastman, and Steven Albert Chavez Lodge love The Angels, Disneyland, cops and jobs… whereas Mayor Tait, Lorri Galloway, and Jose Moreno hate all those good things and just love gangbangers and the homeless.
I’m sure that that’s their plan. But, so what? It’s not true — and we have a good comeback in “they’re robbing you blind.”
There’s always going to be a plan and it’s generally going to be better funded. But people aren’t always as inattentive as they’d need to be for such a plan to work. A scandal of corruption is brewing — and both established journalists and crusading politicians know and love the smell. If all we do now is prompt the Pringle Ring to stoke the fire, that’s plenty.
Steve Lodge isn’t running until 2016.
That’s “as things stand,” GSR. If a judge imposes districting in the ACLU suit, then I’d presume he still might run in 2014.
With districts he’d be a pendejo for doing so. People will still remember what a pendejo he is in 2014.
They’ll need someone to run in whatever districts are opened up — and he can pretend to live anywhere in the city. What, you think they’re going to move Eastman to West Anaheim?
“… the Angels’ lease at Anaheim Stadium is up in the next few years,”
Not any more.
Sorry as I am that I can’t be there to carry one, I think your facetious sign topics about more giveaways could be lost on the probable (TV soundbite / sports) audience, and would only give the uninformed and the Give-Away 4 (sorry,redundant!) MORE toxic ideas!
Something like “Don’t STEAL our STADIUM land” or “Growing Moreno’s Heavenly bankroll sends Anaheim to HELL” or anyone else’s better idea along the same line, might be more digestable for the uninformed who don’t read OJB and think MOU is the sound that a cow makes!
Although obvious once understood, complex (but true) explanations will have a hard time fighting SIMPLE LIES, when the ‘field’ is MSM newsbites.
LoGal spreads the word:
Meanwhile, GSR clues us in on another upcoming atrocity:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/09/anaheim_homeless.php
My solution? Let the homeless stay in Angels Stadium when there isn’t a game or event. There are bathrooms there and everything! Put it in the lease!
Much as I agree with you on many other things, I think the folks in New Orleans might provide you with plenty of insight on the (non) feasibility of using a stadium as a shelter site! Do any nearby commercial / industrial sites exist in the Stadium area that would logistically accommodate something similar to the proposal put forth in Fullerton, or are all of those also being pushed out for expansion of the Plutonium, I mean Platinum Triangle? And who knows, some funding might even be available, were we not giving all our future assets away to hotels and teams?
Let’s look at the points made regarding deal points in the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce’s pitch for today’s rally:
1) The Angels will extend the lease to 2057, keeping the Angels in Anaheim for almost 50 years.
You should ask: Does the proposed deal prevent the Angels from leaving Anaheim until 2057? (No.)
2) The Angels will assume the obligation to pay for $150 million in needed upgrades to the Stadium, saving the taxpayers from having to pay.
You should ask: Do the Angels already have the obligation to pay for needed maintenance the existing contract? (Yes) So do taxpayers now “have to pay”? (No.) Are any “needed upgrades” actually “needed”? (Arguably not — and if so they’d already be Moreno’s responsibility under the current lease.) Over what time period is this $150 million expenditure to be made? (If it’s what I think it is, that would be “20 years” — in other words $7.5 million per year, which is peanuts compared to the Angels’ value.)
3) The Angels will partner with the City to develop a dining/entertainment/retail district next to the stadium similar to what we see around other major league stadiums. This development will bring thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity in Anaheim.
You should ask: What is meant by “partner” — and what does the City get out of this deal as a “partner”? (Does it get property taxes? No — the City itself will owns the land — not the leaseholders. Does it get sales taxes from the surrounding 156-acre parcel? No, those are given away to Arte Moreno personally — and he can keep them even after the Angels leave or sell them them to someone else — such as a crony of the Council majority. Does it get other types proceeds — such as sharing in parking fees if a humongous parking lot — big enough to house a shuttle to take people to a third Disney park? — is built on the 156-acre site? No. It doesn’t even get proceeds from other events at the Grove and elsewhere. All of this is given away.)
Now, of course, it’s not given away for a minimum of 66 years for nothing, of course.
It’s given away for something like $66. Maybe they’ll negotiate the fee up to $10/year. Would that $660 make the agreement ten times better? I think that the public can do the math.
4) The City Council adopted this framework on a 4-1 vote….
You should ask: Huh? So they “approved a framework”? That’s what they did on Sept. 3? That’s funny, because the Council Majority said at the meeting that negotiations were just beginning. Let’s see what ACoC supplicant Todd Ament has to say on the Facebook page:
So the specific “terms” can be changed — but the “framework” has been approved? Good, we all agree — because it’s the framework (Arte keeps all of the revenue) rather than the specific terms ($1 vs. $10 vs. $100 vs. $1000 vs. $10,000 vs. $100,000 per year for leasing this very lucrative property) THAT ARE THE PROBLEM!
You should ask: How many acres are is the parcel — which Ament calls just a “parking lot” — in question? (About 150 acres — about the size of a full urban city block — say, like the one between Katella, Harbor, Orangewood, and West that contains the entire Anaheim Convention Center on maybe 20% of its property — which makes the term “parking lot” a little misleading.) If Moreno had a pre-existing obligation to repair the Stadium, is he really agreeing “in return” to do so? (No.) Does Ament even understand this? (No idea.)
I must have missed the part where Arte put in writing that he was making a $150,000,000 investment in anything. Why isn’t it in the MOU?
BTW, that was a rhetorical question.
Because it’s in the existing lease!
Well, you know, with that hangin’ over his head Arte might panic and do something irrational like signing a 66 year lease for the stadium.
Oh wait. You don’t get to be a billionaire by panicking.
Seen this yet? Thanks to Voice of OC, Blackie barking at the Mayor….
After viewing this video, I’m trying to step back , suppress the mental picture of 3 cups being shuffled around on a table, and follow my river of annoyance back to its source.
Is it possible through FOI request or otherwise (past CC Agenda???**Did it ever even GET ON one?) to find out what MANDATE was spelled out in Mr.HiredGun’s contract, WHO hired him, and which FUNDS are paying him? Is his perspective / attitude, repulsive though it seems, his own, or just a spec requirement, i.e. was ” maximizing ROI and revenue to City” even ON the page, or merely “Retain Angels at ALL costs” and WHO wrote it in? Since the real players never take the field, only moving surrogate pawns, knowing how the pieces move, connecting more dots can only help?
** I checked back to the March 2013 agendas and found no line item contracts. BTW what I DID find was Closed Session Agenda items for “discussion of price/terms of Lease Payments with Angels Baseball, LP” on 5/28, 6/11,6/18, 7/02, 7/23,8/13,8/20, before the MOU vote on 9/03, -That’s 7 MEETINGS over 3 months, for familiarity, vs 3 days with only the agenda packet over Labor Day Weekend for the citizens – just might be a useful piece of info?
Big Box, I have put in a PRA request for the contract and scope of work for Charles Black and any other special consultants specific to this deal. I have a about a week and a half to wait on that delivery.
A number of issues bother me as well, the whole thing just STINKS. So let’s follow the bouncing baseball.
October 23, 2012, the Anaheim City Council has just shoved the streetcar option through the sausage grinder of a hurried Council meeting, as the locally preferred alternative. Still reeling from the shock of seeing them spend $318 million on something that had ZERO public review, I nearly missed Kris Murray asking the Mayor if she and Gail Eastman could pretty please become an ad hoc committee to start negotiating the Angels lease. Alarm bells ring.
Tait very politely told her Hell no, and much to their shock he had disposed of a piece of property that had conflicted him from voting or even discussing the Angels’ lease, so he was prepared to have the entire Council negotiate, thank you very much.
So it has been obvious for some time that they had something up their sleeves.
I cannot help but think that this is not what it seems. I do not think this is about the Angels, not to the extent that Arte is making the demands they claim he is. Instead I think they have something cooked up on the land development deal, but it needs Arte’s buy in because he is entitled to the rights to a set number of parking spaces, that is what has screwed up every development deal that has been tried, lots of folks are interested and back in 2006 the private developers offered WAY more than NFL was bidding to bring a team in, but the parking spaces and the team owners have always been the deal breaker. I do not believe Arte is being a hard ass and therefore they have to throw in the land lease, I believe they have a deal for the land lease and have to appease Arte.
Wow, I didn’t go far enough – I’ll go back and watch that!
I remember that! (The Kris and Gail adhoc Angels thing…)
Maybe our FBI guests need to talk to Arte?
I would like the Gang of Four to divulge all of their ex parte communications on this topic.
“I do not think this is about the Angels, not to the extent that Arte is making the demands they claim he is. Instead I think they have something cooked up on the land development deal, but it needs Arte’s buy in because he is entitled to the rights to a set number of parking spaces, that is what has screwed up every development deal that has been tried…”
I agree completely. If these people were serious about this there would be a single agreement with the Angels. Instead there will be two agreements that are not temporally aligned. That is a recipe for disaster for the obvious reasons. And yet there it is.
Two things I would like to know: Is “Pacific Coast Partners” a Pringle client? What are the ties if any, between Charles Black and Pringle, the City Attorney, and Arte Moreno?
There’s something he didn’t want revealed.
Well, the City Attorney and Pringle were dinner companions last week, for one, and for two Charles Black was the City Attorney’s mentor at a previous law firm. (The “Caeser’s Wife” rule to be above suspicion clearly doesn’t apply here.)
David and others — my latest (re last night’s meeting is up.) Another story or two (or three) will be forthcoming, but I have “real work” to do.
Cynthia, I know I am going to get hell for this, but why don’t they look to the NFL as they “negotiate” with Arte. With LA’s failure any chance to get a football team back in Orange County?