Hey, here’s a sign of possible progress in Anaheim! (Maybe not — but even being able to say “maybe” is itself progress given where we’ve been!)
Will it be a whitewash to approve a bad deal that helps a few people? Or could they choose people for oversight who actually know what they’re doing — for the benefit of all of Anaheim?
The likely weakness in the design apparent in the MOUs has always been that Arte Moreno was being used the the Pringle Ring, the “Clique at the Catch,” to make himself a little money while making other people rich. (After all, Moreno himself is not a developer — and OC is teeming with the beasties.)
My outsider’s guess is that maybe Moreno and his loyal advisors (at least I hope he has some) have decided that if the deal is grimy that grime will likely get all over him if he lets it happen. (If there is already some tacit deal for him to unload the valuable lease-holding rights that he’s been set up to receive onto a local partner, who would then make plenty of money, then he has every reason to want to backpedal; as it is he’s probably earned himself a deposition someday for what has already been done in his name.)
Moreno doesn’t strike me as someone villainously trying to pervert the political system, but rather as someone who just seeks to maximize profit as a reflex. (I’m also more sympathetic than some are because I might well have picked up Josh Hamilton too, so I can’t throw stones at him for that.) His problem is that he — not Curt Pringle, not Jordan Brandman, not Kris Murray, not Michael Houston, not Charles Black — is the visible public figure who will naturally catch the public’s attention (and contempt) if any deal crafted by “his negotiators” and “the City’s negotiators” (presuming that they’re not the same people) turns out to be a sickening ripoff. He’s already a billionaire; why should he put up with catching other people’s flak for their benefit?
Art Marroquin (who’s doing such good work at the Register on this issue that I occasionally hang out at coffeeshops until someone discards a copy just so I can read it) has a good article today that heralds possible progress — or a possible whitewash (my words, not his) — with Kris Murray calling for creation of a “Citizen Task Force” to review lease renegotiation.
“It could not be more relevant to have full transparency so our residents know the benefits of the stadium as we enter negotiations with the Angels,” Murray said. “This will allow them to weigh the benefits of any agreement before it’s brought back to the City Council for approval.”
…
It’s unclear how many people Murray would have serve on her Anaheim Citizens Task Force on Community Benefits, which would review plans that could allow the Angels to lease the city-owned parking lot surrounding the stadium for $1 annually over 66 years. In turn, team owner Arte Moreno would have the right to develop the property and ask the city for tax subsidies to help fund construction. Any profits could go toward stadium improvements.
“Now, after the horses are out of the barn, Councilwoman Murray’s idea to create a commission strikes me as simply looking for political cover for a bad decision,” said Tait, who asked for an appraisal of the stadium property. “Instead, the city should openly negotiate an agreement that pays the people of Anaheim a fair price for its largest real estate asset.”
While I agree that the ACTFCB — yeccch, let’s just call it “Task Force Arte” — is not adequate, I also think that it’s at least a step in the right direction. The question is whether it will be a whitewash. Part of the answer to that question would hinge on who would be on the task force, part on who would staff the task force (as staff can often control what the group they serve decides — cough, OCTA Board, cough), and on what information they would be able to seek.
If this Task Force Arte turns out to be a rubber stamp for the Council majority and its Superlobbyist “patron” — and looking at recent Anaheim commissions, including the Charter Review Commission that is even now concocting a horror show for voters, that’s always got to be the safest bet — then it won’t do Arte Moreno any good because it won’t confer any legitimacy on the product. It’s not like those of us trying to protect Anaheim’s resources are going to shrug stupidly and wave them through; we’ll be watching what they do closely.
It’s not that hard to do this right — with people who are professionals at this sort of contract review, knowledgeable about what sort of information should be sought, skeptical enough to withstand a snow job from the likes of Charlie Black, and insulated enough from political consequences that they can speak their minds.
I’ll look forward to seeing what safeguards are placed into the proposal when it comes to nominations. If it’s just the usual gang of loyal appointees, that won’t cut it. If it’s people who really know something about local business, including real estate — we’ve heard more and more of them speaking before the Council lately — than maybe this could be helpful.
And when Task Force Arte is done looking at this deal, maybe it could be renamed “Task Force Bill” and look at the GardenWalk. And then it could be renamed “Task Force Carrie” and look at the Streetcar. (I wonder if we could make it through the entire alphabet?)
Greg, pls chk your inbox
Turned out to be something more like mouthwash: they didn’t swallow it.
Oh well. Easy come, easy go.
I tend to agree with Mayor Tait that this is basically a political cover for a bad decision. However, the steamrolling approach of the council majority may have struck a hurdle due to the public outcry at the magnitude of the proposed giveaway. They may disregard the findings of a genuinely professional taskforce, which could hurt their political careers but their allegiance to the “business” creator, Pringle, will be overriding.
Moreno must have loyal advisors, one of them “Dear Arte: Can I call you Arte?” Chmielewski.
Putting lipstick on a pig is bad enough, but becomes WORSE when it is obvious to even the casual observer that the correct remedy is cologne, disinfectant, and chemotherapy, and it is pointed out that the cosmetician is holding the lipstick by the wrong end.
Not only rejecting the public-inclusive procedures of the PRIOR (DIsney) deal (Initial public involvement with scoping meeting to DEFINE public goals vs marginalization with MOU ‘end-run’ around the public), and following that up with RETRIBUTION, when her eager swallowing of the ‘expert’ Stadium Economic Report is exposed by a few (now prohibited) questions from the Mayor? How is the pronouncement of YET ANOTHER, Proxy-packed, time-starved committee supposed to SUBSTITUTE for the DIRECT PUBLIC input that apparently is to be AVOIDED at all costs? Any lessons from the ‘Election Methods /Participation’ committee have apparently already faded.
The PROCESS, as MUCH as the allegedly negotiable ‘deal points’ so far, should be CONSTRUCTED to ROBUSTLY SURVIVE public scrutiny, instead of deftly steered to AVOID it, so the wind doesn’t blow the band-aids off.
The only thing so far ‘transparent’ about Murrays / Bradman’s lip-service masked efforts is a disregard for the public.
Obviously, “yet another proxy-packed, time-starved committee” would be both a joke and a disaster. If that’s what Murray is proposing, it will backfire on her (as well as doing the public no good.) But that’s not what this proposal has to be. It could be what it should be — a chance to assemble people with expertise and investigative resources who can dispassionately evaluate a proposal as if it were a critical business decision for the City — which is exactly what it is!
Recall Wally Courtney’s comments at the “Take Back Anaheim” rally:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/09/if-the-anaheim-city-council-majority-were-serious-people-what-would-they-have-done/
That’s still a good series of questions.
Bill Grisolia also has expertise and asked good questions at that rally. http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/09/video-highlights-growing-take-back-anaheim-truth-squad-strikes-at-city-hall/ Wouldn’t he be a good addition to such a Task Force?
Anaheim has expertise — people who can study this issue appropriately and report on it honestly. Is the Council really going to forgo that in favor of a rubber stamp? That would be worse — for them and for the City — than having no Task Force at all.
How is the 8,10,12 voices of a Committee, better than, or even equivalent, to those SAME voices, AND the REST of 350,000, in public meetings/hearings? This still LIMITS and CO-OPTS public input, with a nice candy coating so it is easily swallowed. Have we heard anything yet about a public advisory vote? I haven’t. The WHOLE process should be open, defined and communicated, UP FRONT, open to the public, not an incremental response to public outcry, if even, or is THIS all that is planned? When did we forfeit the right to DIRECT public participation? ( A voicemail/ e-mail box to nowhere, NOT on the public record, does NOT fill that bill.) I hope we are not ABOUT TO!
And when was (this) or”No task force at all’ the LIMIT of public choices? That’s the same thought trap as ‘evaluating’ the ‘Moreno MOU’ in a vacuum, vs COMPARISON to the public input that is being clamored for. How big was the audience / participation for the ‘Election /participation’ Committee? I’ll bet Monday mornings turnout/participation had it beat, and that was on Monday morning. Compare that to size of the post disturbance Cook auditorium forum. Which size would YOU expect for a city of 350,000, on an issue this critical?
The advantage of a smaller size is simply that they can investigate, request records, and deliberate reasonably. They’re not at all a substitute for anything else, including a referendum. But with reasonable appointees on such a Task Force, they could certainly be a supplement.
The public needs to insure that THEIR wishes, and a clear path for EFFECTIVELY expressing them, are clearly and completely communicated to the Council . Without that, benevolent implementation would be my LAST bet, given history.