JUST over our transom, the State Audit demanded by Senator Umberg and Assemblyman Valencia into “Anaheim’s Lease Agreement With Angels Ownership.” See what you see here, I have to run (Vern) before I’m able to read and write some more. At first glance I see a lot of useful comparisons with the way OTHER towns interact with their sports teams. Other towns look after their interests, the interests of their treasury and taxpayers. The problem is CULTURAL: Anaheim is a DOORMAT when dealing with its biggest special interests. Am I wrong? The doormats get elected because they get all the money, and they hire loyal Doormat Staff. Who work for Disney, the Angels, developers, etc. Or am I wrong?
See what you see here, I’ll be adding more, and I’ll be reporting tomorrow from the sentencing of Proud Doormat Mayor Harry Sidhu.
*********
How do you like these apples?
In the nearly 30 years between fiscal years 1997–98 and 2024–25, Anaheim received revenue of $30.6 million from baseball ticket sales, parking, and other events while incurring $30.2 million in expense for debt service and stadium maintenance, resulting in a net total of just $415,000 for Anaheim over this period, excluding rent revenue and stadium renovation costs. Anaheim returned to Angels ownership the $76 million that ownership had prepaid for rent in 1997—along with providing an additional $20 million—to contribute towards the Angels’ stadium renovation efforts.
Angels ownership pays no ongoing rent, and will pay no ongoing rent, despite its option to extend the lease with Anaheim multiple times, including the three-year extension option it exercised in February 2025. The current lease runs through December 2032, and the Angels can extend the lease for up to six additional years. Anaheim officials told us that generating revenue from its lease agreement with Angels ownership was not a priority during the original negotiations.
Last time I talked to Mike Lyster about this… (for this story) he said “It’s really not so much about the money we make from rent or ticket receipts, as the fact that folks who come to Angels game spend more money in the city, they go to Disneyland, they eat out here…” Oh brother, still saying that – it is simply not true, or not true in any substantial way.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
“Angels ownership pays no ongoing rent, and will pay no ongoing rent, despite its option to extend the lease with Anaheim multiple times, including the three-year extension option it exercised in February 2025.”
There you have it. Harry and his idiotic cronies rushed a lease back into place for his political benefit that completely gifts Anaheim’s largest and best asset to the Angels for exactly nothing in exchange.
Also, the taxpayers of Anaheim have zero right to inspect or enforce stadium maintenance obligations, meaning it’s worse than free. Anaheim is paying through depreciation for the Angels to benefit from monster truck rallies through normal baseball games.
Anaheim seems to be uniquely obsequious when it comes to the Angels (or any monied interest, really), but it’s a mistake to say that “other towns look after their interests”. Teams are always trying to put one over on their host cities (or aspiring host-cities-to-be), and they almost always fall for it, to some degree.
Take a look at the website fieldofschemes.com (especially the “Posts by Topic” link to the archives at the top). It’s a blog/news site focused on detailing pro sports teams’ various scams against host cities across the country — a useful reference for honing your cynicism the next time the Angels and the City come forward with a “win/win” proposition.
Almost all cities with big league teams bend over for them and Anaheim is no exception. Of course the deals are bad. Our public servants are serving themselves and the big interests.
Business of Baseball!
How do you like these apples?
“In the nearly 30 years between fiscal years 1997–98 and 2024–25, Anaheim received revenue of $30.6 million from baseball ticket sales, parking, and other events while incurring $30.2 million in expense for debt service and stadium maintenance, resulting in a net total of just $415,000 for Anaheim over this period, excluding rent revenue and stadium renovation costs. Anaheim returned to Angels ownership the $76 million that ownership had prepaid for rent in 1997—along with providing an additional $20 million—to contribute towards the Angels’ stadium renovation efforts…”
Last time I talked to Mike Lyster about this… (for this story https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2024/07/angels-score-a-victory-against-the-city-of-anaheim/) he said “It’s really not so much about the money we make from rent or ticket receipts, as the fact that folks who come to Angels game spend more money in the city, they go to Disneyland, they eat out here…” Oh brother, still saying that – it is simply not true, or not true in any substantial way.
They threw that “economic engine” bullshit at everything. Common sense dictates that sales tax generation outside the stadium must be de minimus. Who eats out before or after a baseball game. A few dozen people might find gas station.
Lyster is a dyed-in-the-wool, lying sack o’ crap. He actually seems to like lying.
Yes but I do check in with him. Because I figure whatever he says is the best they’ve got, and I work from there.
Ask Lyster to Google “substitution effect”, since nobody in city government seems to have ever heard of it. (Peoples’ leisure spending is pretty static — money they spend on the Angels is offset by less spending for movies, restaurants, Disneyland, etc, etc)
Whenever the city is trying to sell this stuff, their Holy Grail is the out-of-town conventioneer who extends their hotel stay by a day to experience the glory of Angels Baseball — take that! It’s new money! The substitution effect does not apply! But how many of those guys can there be?
$415k divided by 30 years, divided by 12 months = $1,100.00. Can’t get a studio apartment for that.