This came over the transom yesterday from Councilwoman Lucille Kring, responding to Mayor Tom Tait’s October 2 op-ed in the OC Register:
About Lucille KringIt’s About Leadership
By Councilwoman Lucille Kring
City of Anaheim
Leadership – that is what you expect from a mayor of a major city. But Tom Tait, in his opinion column of Oct. 2, 2014, “We need to keep Angels, but deal shouldn’t ding taxpayers” shows that he is not capable of anything but rhetoric meant to shift blame and obscure the facts.
Read again Tait’s words from his own opinion column. You will see some odd things:
• He takes no responsibility for the Angels looking to relocate outside of Anaheim, he blames others;
• He never outlines a plan to keep the Angels in Anaheim, but instead implies that he is the only one on the City Council looking out for the taxpayers’ interests;
• He never suggests that he will build consensus with his colleagues, rather he suggests that the council majority should have done a deal with the Angels without him; and
• He uses this op-ed as a way to insulate himself from criticism that will come in the election.These are not words from a leader, but words from a politician looking to avoid blame.
Here are some REAL facts:
Fact #1 – The MOU framework was NOT a giveaway.
The Anaheim taxpayers would always own the land. Tait latched onto the $1 annual figure because it was convenient to do so. Tait has known from the beginning that the figure was a starting point, but rather than lead negotiations on that point he has used this figure to incite public outrage. But Tait has refused to negotiate with the Angels or offer any proposal to keep the team in the city. Instead he attacks his council colleagues for rolling up their sleeves and trying to make progress.That is not leadership, that is grandstanding, and claiming that he is the only one truly watching out for taxpayers is disingenuous.
Fact #2 – The MOU framework was a SAFE deal for Anaheim taxpayers.
Tait has continually stated that the taxpayers should split the profits on any new stadium development. What he doesn’t say is that would involve risk – share the profits, share the risk. Spoken like a true developer. Except the Anaheim taxpayers aren’t developers, and, I for one, think its ludicrous to create a deal that puts one cent of taxpayer money at risk for the sake of speculation. Fact #3 – The Mayor is only ONE vote.
Tait is correct on that point at least. And although he tries to whitewash the facts, it doesn’t change the history of these negotiations. The MOU framework alone took two years to build. Much of that time, Tait couldn’t even join discussions because he owned land within 500 feet of the stadium – a conflict the FPCC was kind enough to remind him of in 2013. When he finally rejoined the discussion, after transferring that property to his immediate family, he went to work post haste characterizing the MOUs as a “rush job”, a “giveaway”, “cronyism” and worse. The fact is it was Tait who halted negotiations again and again as his colleagues provided him with the courtesy of transparent reviews, studies, staff analysis and public discussions. In the entire year since his first objection, not one fully articulated alternative has come out of the mayor’s office. Not one.It is healthy in a municipal environment to have differing points of view. Yet I believe it is the responsibility of a mayor to build consensus in order to advance the city, move initiatives forward and protect our residents. In this most crucial duty Tait has sadly failed. Time and again I have watched the mayor belittle our professional staff, give misinformation to residents, align with factions filing frivolous lawsuits that hurt Anaheim’s ability to grow, and, worst of all, denigrate his colleagues’ character and motives when they have disagreed with him.If Tom Tait is replaced in the next election, the new mayor and council should immediately sit down with the Angels and start negotiations from scratch. There are many options to consider, but none will move forward without a leader at the helm willing to work with others. Our city needs leadership that protects our residents, listens to all voices and respects our partners.
Lucille Kring is running for Mayor of Anaheim in the November 4 election. If successful Councilwoman Kring would be the first woman to lead the County’s largest city. Currently, Kring serves as a member of the Anaheim City Council. As our Councilwoman, Lucille has long championed Public Safety, Economic Development, and Neighborhood and Park improvements. The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce honored Lucille as “Ambassador of the Year” after she gave more than 500 hours of volunteer service to our community. Lucille was elected to serve on the Chamber’s Board of Directors from 1996 through 2011.
Anaheim Blog 
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Diana
If you are Arte Moreno, I’m the queen of England
October 11, 2014 at 9:03 pm
Arte Moreno
Hello Queen
October 11, 2014 at 12:50 pm
David Zenger
Why should Tait take the blame for the Angels (phony, by the way) talks with Tustin? Kring was the one who voted to give Moreno another three years on the opt out.
That extension was handed away with ZERO consideration, all based on the flimsy say-so of somebody named Charles Black who appeared to be working for the Angels.
October 11, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Matthew Cunningham
Another Zenger assertion grounded in speculation and innuendo. What a surprise.
October 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm
David Zenger
Speculation?
I don’t doubt the Tustin council would sell out their constituents if a certain unnamed “consultant” started arm twinsting, but it won’t happen (yet) Mr. Big is invested in Anaheim land use twizzles, not Tustin). And who will build the new $1,000,000,000 stadium? And what idiot who lives in Tustin would support it when there is an existing stadium four miles away?
Black delivered the terms of the MOU to the council and Kring voted on it in the affirmative – three free years.
Let me draw your followers a pretty picture: “here take this gun; now load it with these bullets; now hold it against my head.”
The Kring formula of leadership.
October 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm
James Robert Reade
Although I voted for Anaheim Ambassador Lucille Kring when she ran for Mayor we were very fortunate to see Curt Pringle emerge as our Mayor and win that election. Mayor Curt Pringle made city council meetings a very uplifting experience. I believe Council Member Kring is ready to lead the City of Anaheim in the same fashion. Again, I will be voting for Lucille Kring for Mayor.
October 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Larry Herschler
Angels come, angels go and the point is? Arn’t they from Los Angeles? Yes, they are nice to have here. Let Tustin take them (won’t happen) I remember the discussion when Santa Ana and Anaheim were fighting to build a stadium. Anaheim won and we had the California Angels. Anaheim never seems to be part of the discussion. Why don’t you discuss the hotel tax give aways. Angels won’t go and until they are willing to discuss Anaheim Angels who cares?
October 11, 2014 at 9:59 pm
David Zenger
Speaking of Kring’s leadership, I notice on my sample ballot that she is one and only person cheerleading a Utility Tax – Measure N. Wow. What a surprise! No wonder she has the support of the cop and fire unions.
October 12, 2014 at 12:19 am
Ryan Cantor
As enjoyable as it is to watch Lucille Kring attempt to articulate anything about policy, I have to point out she completely forgot to include some rather critical context in her statement about facts. From the top, with the pieces she missed:
Fact #1 — The Anaheim taxpayers would always own the land . . . BUT most residents of Anaheim would be dead before its use would return to the city. The proposed lease was for a minimum of 66 years. Realistically, it could have been 99 years.
Now I don’t know about you, but if I’m going to be dead and the thing I’m giving up won’t get returned until my grandkids have kids, I think that’s safe to call it a giveaway.
Fact #2 – The MOU framework was a SAFE deal for Anaheim taxpayers.
Tait has continually stated that the taxpayers should split the profits on any new stadium development. What he doesn’t say is that would involve risk – share the profits, share the risk.
Well, that’s giant load of steamy poo. The city proposed to front the majority of the investment to develop the land . . . namely the land itself. The city gives up its option to do anything else with it as a result of the lease to Moreno . . . That’s sharing the risk, Lucille. So where’s Anaheim’s share of the profits? Oh. Right. No where. But thanks for spelling out why it was a really bad idea.
Fact #3 – The Mayor is only ONE vote.
The Mayor was the only vote opposed to a piss poor MOU that gave away Anaheim’s single largest piece of leverage . . . that Arte was out of time to find anywhere else to go . . . for absolutely nothing.
Lucille Kring voted to give Arte Moreno THREE EXTRA YEARS to find somewhere else to go and got NOTHING for Anaheim in return.
That’s not leadership, but we do have a word for it.
Incompetence.
October 13, 2014 at 10:57 am
Anaheim Insider
“BUT most residents of Anaheim would be dead before its use would return to the city.”
So what? Do you want the City of Anaheim to manage a giant entertainment/retail destination? Are you upset because the city would have to wait 66 years to raze the property? Point?
“Tait has continually stated that the taxpayers should split the profits on any new stadium development. What he doesn’t say is that would involve risk – share the profits, share the risk.”
Uh-uh. All the development risk is on Arte Moreno. The city risks no capital; it’s leasing asphalt for development, and reaps the reward if it succeeds. Tait is demanding that Moreno take all the investment capital risk, and then give Anaheim half the revenue. If Tait were in Moreno’s shoes, he’d tell the city to take a hike, and rightly so.
“The Mayor is only ONE vote.”
Yes he is. And has been skillful in delaying and politicizing the negotiations and freezing his council colleagues, who can’t coordinate effectively due to Brown Act constraints, and who went along with the delaying tactics Tait wrapped in “transparency.”
Tait has a force amplifier in the media, especially the Voice of OC. Being mayor makes him chief city spokesman and in a much stronger position to dominate news coverage with his messaging. He’s unafraid to use the negotiations as a wedge issue while his colleagues, until recently, tried to play the good government role. The Voice of OC might as well change its name to the Voice of Tait when it comes to Anaheim coverage, which is one-sidedly pro-Tait and anti-council majority.
And let’s not forget how negotiations have suffered due the continual city manager turn-over, and a city staff’s mediocre handling of negotiations while burdened with a mayor doing his level best to scuttle them.
The poor, pitiful Tom Tait spin doesn’t wash.
October 13, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Ryan Cantor
Dear Lord.
You know that land and capital are equivalent, right?
In this case, Anaheim is putting up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of land. That’s risk. The MOU gave back nothing in exchange.
If this is just ignorance on your part, fine. That’s excusable. I honestly can understand that. It’s not excusable for Kring. At her level, it’s incompetence.
You should really try to understand this. Hundreds of millions of dollars risked by the pubic (that’s a fact. Don’t try to waffle out if it) and no profit returned to the city. The value put forth by the city is probably greater than the cost to engineer and build in the land, yet Moreno would keep all of it while only expending what he’s already obligated to expend under the existing lease.
To top it all off, the council gave Moreno three extra years to develop a deal to leverage against Anaheim and got nothing in return! That’s not leadership. It’s just incompetence.
I get you’re angry. I get that you want to win. But the MOUs were absolutely horrible.
October 13, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Matthew Cunningham
The risk being…? The land is going to vanish? Failure of a development attempt would leave the city with what it has now: economically unproductive land, but Moreno would be out many, many, many millions of dollars. The real loss, and the real risk, is on Moreno. At the same time, Moreno would have already fronted the money to renovate the stadium, regardless of whether the development was a success or failure.
Oh yes, a terrible, terrible deal for the city.
It’s a moot point, Ryan. Even if Tom Tait hadn’t succeeded in scuttling the MOU, Moreno has already wised up that the city was getting the better part of the deal (it was the city’s idea, after all).
October 13, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Ryan Cantor
The risk being the time value of money over 66 to 99 years. It’s at least hundreds of millions of dollars. More if we include lost opportunity costs tied to development of the land.
October 13, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Anaheim Insider
I was going to make the same points to Ryan, but no sense in piling on. The MOU was a win for Anaheim. It’s a shame the Mayor couldn’t see that, and decided to responded divisively instead of constructively in order to obtain what he considered better terms.
October 13, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Ryan Cantor
Then you’d look just as silly as Matt.
Speaking of, I want to do some residential and commercial infill development. Which of you two want to lease me your home for a dollar?
I’ll keep all the profit and give your house back in 2080. After all, this is a no-risk investment for you.
October 13, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Anaheim Insider
How about this scenario, Ryan: the city pays for all the stadium renovations, pays Arte Moreno to develop part of the parking lot and manage the development, and then takes half the profit over a certain amount? Would you consider that a good deal?
October 13, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Ryan Cantor
It’s an improvement, but not equitable. Using the numbers available, that has the city putting up $380,000,000 to Moreno’s what, $185,000,000?
I’d need more. But, an improvement. Why the city would completely release Moreno from his obligation to maintain the stadium is curious.
October 14, 2014 at 8:36 am
Anaheim Insider
Interesting. You consider it an improvement for the CITY TO PAY for the stadium renovation rather than the Angels; for the city to PAY Moreno to develop/manage the parking lot development, and in return the city gets half the profit the development MAY yield, IF that profit exceeds a certain amount.
I’m glad the city hasn’t hired you to negotiate the deal. Moreno would take us to the cleaners.
October 14, 2014 at 8:52 am
Ryan Cantor
You can read, correct? Seriously. I’m asking in honestly, because this comment of yours is just atrocious.
What I actually said is that the exchange wouldn’t be equitable and that I find it curious that the city would relieve Moreno of his obligation to fund repairs.
I mean it’s right there, man. Black and white. Plain as day.
Why is this an improvement? Because AT LEAST the city would get some return on its investment. In the MOU, the return was zero. This is larger than zero, hence an improvement. I also said I’d need more, but again, larger than zero is better than zero.
This isn’t that hard. I too am glad the city didn’t hire me to negotiate with the Angels. I’m grossly unqualified, but at least I can read and do math.
Lord help us if they hire you.
October 13, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Matthew Cunningham
By the way, Ryan. You may have noticed that I’ve retrieved a number of your comments (and Zenger’s) from the trash and published them. Generally, I don’t like engaging with either of you and try to avoid it. Other commenters are free to do so. I don’t enjoy it because your relentless negativity doesn’t bring out the best in me, and I find myself typing (or being tempted to type) intemperate things I regret.
Going forward, I will continue allowing as many of comments as possible from you and Zenger, but I will edit them in the interests of polite conversation without removing the points being made.
October 13, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Dan Chmielewski
Matt, I’m still wondering when I will be allowed to comment on the “Save the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” Facebook page. Censorship — it’s OK for them to Censor but Not for You. Remember that
October 13, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Ryan Cantor
No idea what you’re talking about, Dan. Sounds like you’re trying to change the subject though. Good luck!
October 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Matthew Cunningham
“Sounds like you’re trying to change the subject though.”
Wow. Talk about “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
October 13, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Ryan Cantor
I’m sorry, am I off topic on this thread?
October 13, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Matthew Cunningham
I was referring to your general habit of subject-changing.
October 13, 2014 at 1:24 pm
Ryan Cantor
Then you’re off topic as well. Shall we keep to the thread then?
October 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Ryan Cantor
I appreciate your token of kindness, Matt.
October 13, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Ryan Cantor
Also, there’s Anaheim Insider again . . . Throwing city staff under the bus to suit the political needs of the Chamber of Commerce.
Hope you folks at city hall are paying attention . . .
October 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Anaheim Insider
Ryan, I’m not “throwing city staff under the bus,” your distortions notwithstanding. On the contrary, you and the other Taitbots attack staff for more regularly and nastily. And my comments aren’t made to suit the political needs of the Chamber or anyone else, although that’s also an odd criticism coming from someone who seems to spend all day commenting on this blog to suit the political needs of the Tait-Vanderbilt campaign.
It’s doubtful anyone in Anaheim city leadership has thrown more people under the bus than the mayor, something staff is well aware of.
October 13, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Ryan Cantor
I apologize if you meant “mediocre handling of negotiations” as anything other than throwing staff under the bus.
October 14, 2014 at 8:29 am
Anaheim Insider
Insincere apology accepted.
October 13, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Anaheim Insider
I’d like Ryan’s opinion on the whether or not it’s right for the city to offer this economic assistance package to a private business:
Rebate 50% of all the net sales tax received by the city up to $3,000,000, and then 70% of all net sales tax over $3,000,000 from sales generated by that private business. Set the agreement’s term at 20 years, with automatic 10-year renewals forever after.
Do you think that is a good, fair deal for taxpayers?
October 13, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Ryan Cantor
Off topic. Baiting is generally not polite, either.
October 14, 2014 at 8:32 am
Anaheim Insider
“Baiting”? Please. Just curious if you think that is a good, fair deal for taxpayers given your deeply-held, often-stated opposition to using tax subsidies for economic development.
October 14, 2014 at 11:01 am
Anaheimster
I don’t get it. How is AI’s question baiting? Why won’t you respond?
October 18, 2014 at 10:01 am
Anaheim Insider
Ryan is sensitive on this subject because the “deal” I’m referring to is a very, very, very generous tax sharing agreement his employer has with the city in which it is located. Ryan enjoys a direct financial benefit from what he denounces elsewhere as “crony capitalism.”
October 18, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Dan Chmielewski
Oh, please share more details. Are you saying Ryan is a hypocrite?
October 20, 2014 at 9:42 am
Dan Chmielewski
Since they love cutting and pasting comments from here, this is what Ryan had to say at OJ:
Ryan Cantor
Posted October 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM
In a (not) shocking display of Anaheim Insider’s complete disregard for basic ethics:
Anaheim Insider
Ryan is sensitive on this subject because the “deal” I’m referring to is a very, very, very generous tax sharing agreement his employer has with the city in which it is located. Ryan enjoys a direct financial benefit from what he denounces elsewhere as “crony capitalism.”
—
*****I am not authorized to comment on issues impacting the company I work for.***** You know that, I know that, and asking me to do so just shows what kind of slimeball you really are. Turning that into an issue to score political points against me (i.e. someone who really doesn’t matter) not only represents a piss poor understanding of ethics, but it also speaks to your affinity towards pettiness.
Congratulations on being a jerk. You’ve earned it.
well, isn’t Ryan the one who mentioned a $400 million project he’s managing?
October 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Anaheim Jack
If that’s the issue, some clarity on how he resolves this seemingly hypocritical stance would be nice. Unethical, jerk and slimeball might be a bit much until we see how he can accept a salary from what he denounces.
October 12, 2014 at 4:30 pm
jodie mosley
I would like to say something here. When I asked lucille to give me ONE example of a restaurant , entertainment, and exampkes of her helping WEST ANAHEIM, the response was “there is a baja fresh on brookhurst, go to east anaheim for other things, and beach blvd had bike police.”
I REPRESENT WEST ANAHEIM.
WE DO NOT HAVE A RESTAUANT, ICE CREAM SHOP, FARMERS MARKET, ENTERTAINMENT, A SAFE PLACE TO COMMUNE, AND BEACH BLVD HOLDS THE MAJORITY OF LOW INCOME HOUSING, MOTELS, AND CRIME. WE HVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR WEST ANAHEIM FOR OVER 20 YEARS. NO ONE HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY. All of my money, aswell as everyone elses inthis area supports Cypress, Buena Park and Huntington Beach by spending in their cities as they offer what we need. I do not applaud anyone for anything they have done on beach blvd, except the police dept. It has remained the same. But now huena park is doing what we wete begging for….they leveled motels, built the new mall, called The Source, and is redefining beach blvd to be changed into the ENTERTAINMENT district. We demand what is rightfully ours. You spent ALL the funds to beautify, expand, and make a sucess of the packing district, the downtown area, museums, restaurants, entertainment, its all there.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE SPECIFICALLY FOR WEST ANAHEIM?
ZERO.
CLAIM ANYTHING YOU WANT, BUT I CHALLENGE YOU TO WALK BEACH BLVD AT NIGHT, AND STAY IN ONE OF THE MOTELS.
I DARE YOU.
October 13, 2014 at 2:40 am
James Robert Reade
You can blame Knott’s Gangbanger Farm for demise of the hotels along Beach Blvd. and WAND for frivolous complaints against building a Walgreens! Stop complaining when good this are in the works.
October 13, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Sick of Politics
Buena Park has far more restrictive motel polices than Anaheim does. So, the only entities responsible to the motels are Anaheim and the motels themselves. As for Wand, it’s a resident based group that has fought hard for two decades… The only group that has West anaheim residents interests at heart….
October 12, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Vernaheim
This is one of the funnier things to come over your transom in some time, boss. Starting with the title – “Kring: It’s about Leadership!” Hilarious! Kring has all the leadership of a windblown weed.
FACT. If Tait indeed, with his only one vote, managed to single-handedly stop this disastrous deal in its tracks by merely speaking out in public about how bad it was, until all his colleagues were too ashamed to vote for it, then THAT is impressive leadership!
FACT. If Lucille believes so strongly in this deal, but couldn’t get any two of her klepto colleagues to join her in voting for it, then THAT is zero leadership.
Next slowball?