You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Anaheim Angels’ category.

My morning cup of Newman’s Special Blend (extra bold) suddenly tasted bitter after reading the editorial on the front page of the Opinion section of Sunday’s Orange County Register (OCR). The meaning of biased and sometimes unwarranted criticism was clear: kudos to Tom Tait, Anaheim’s mayor; boos to Curt Pringle, the city’s former mayor. picket

The editorial began, “Election season often brings out the ugliest in people [and in editorials]. Negative attack ads and misrepresentations have become commonplace. . . . Local politics are often the nastiest of all. . . . Some of the most deceptive campaign efforts, misinformation and negativity this election cycle are coming from two of the county’s largest and most prominent cities: Anaheim and Irvine.“ To these distinguished sources of misinformation and negativity, I nominate the addition of the Orange County Register.

The OCR’s editorial board accuses Pringle of “running a shameful smear campaign against Mayor Tom Tait,” who is applauded for opposing the “alarmingly lucrative deals lobbied for by Pringle” [and his allies]. He is criticized for supporting a tax incentive to build a new hotel in Anaheim near Disneyland and the convention center.

In fact, more hotels are needed in Anaheim to accommodate the ever-increasing number of visitors and conventioneers. To fulfill the needs of larger organizations and associations, the convention center must grow to ensure that Anaheim is selected as the convention city instead of groups choosing cities with larger convention centers and enough hotel rooms to house participants. Building hotels and adding space to a convention center is part of economic growth. If Anaheim wants tax revenues and sales taxes from future conventions, it must add convention center space and build hotels.

Read the rest of this entry »

two taits caption

Anaheim Insider here.

Has anyone else noticed how the Tait campaign and Tait supporters in general react to any criticism of their man they way Scientologists do toward critics of L. Ron Hubbard? They come unglued at the suggestion the Mayor is wrong on something, being unkind to his colleagues or distorting facts.

At the same time, they either enthusiastically echo any attack by the Tait campaign (and let’s be honest, the Tait Family Trust IEs are part of the larger Tait re-election campaign), or are silent about them. 

I noticed an example of this this morning after reading the post about the Tait campaign crying foul over its media ally Brian Calle being accurately if unhelpfully quoted calling the Mayor an “advocate for the people who were rioting and their issues.” Tait opponents are ‘despicable” for accurately quoting what Calle really said.

Read the rest of this entry »

How important to Mayor Tait is re-signing the Anaheim Angels for 20+ years? For members of the Anaheim City Council and the Angels, negotiations to achieve a new lease agreement have not been a surprise. Let’s review Tait’s substantive comments about the lease in his State of the City addresses since 2011.

January 2011: Zilch.

ttJanuary 2012: The Angels signed two new players–Albert Pujols and pitcher C. J. Wilson. I know I’m not the only one in the room who is excited for spring training.

February 2013: I’d like to join Angels Baseball in welcoming Josh Hamilton to Anaheim. . . . He joins a stellar line up, including the American League Rookie of the Year, Mike Trout, and Albert Pujols.

January 2014: Even though we didn’t make the playoffs, the team drew more than 3 million fans and provided plenty of excitement. One highlight . . . was Mike Trout hitting for the cycle.

No doubt about it: Mayor Tait’s highest priority has been effecting a new lease agreement between the city and the Angels—and the reason he pitches this topic during each annual State of the City speech.

—Hugh Glenn


This came over the transom yesterday from Councilwoman Lucille Kring, responding to Mayor Tom Tait’s October 2 op-ed in the OC Register:

It’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:

Read the rest of this entry »

Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray was featured on this ABC-7 Eyewitness News story from yesterday:

Murray on KABC-TV re Angels 9-30-14


End of the day, this story hurts, rather than helps, Tait. To the extent news coverage of Angels negotiations has focused on the mayor, it has been on his vocal criticism of what has been represented (inaccurately) to an Angels demand for the right to develop part of the stadium district for a $1 annual lease payment. After a year of that, the coverage has now shifted to the Angels responding by terminating negotiations and looking to move to Tustin or elsewhere. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring

Anaheim Insider here.

The gloves are really off now.

Lucille Kring unleashed a broadside on Friday against Tom Tait after the Angels informed the City they were terminating negotiations on the MOU. She told the LA Times:

“Mayor Tait seems bent on driving the Angels out in order to demolish the stadium and make a quick buck on more generic development. I wonder if the residents of Brooklyn are glad that they have high-density apartments instead of Ebbets Field and the Dodgers.”

She followed up by blasting out an e-mail blasting Tait for alienating the Angels:

Enough is Enough!

A Failure of Leadership

Dear ___,

Yesterday the City of Anaheim received a letter from the American League Division Champion Angels Baseball organization saying that they were electing to terminate the Stadium Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as well as negotiations with the City of Anaheim. (View Letter)
l am at a loss to express my disappointment other than to say that this represents a total lack of leadership on the part of our current Mayor, Tom Tait.

As the Angels’ letter points out, the MOU was meant to be a starting point in the negotiations process. And yet, time and time again I have listened to the Mayor tell the media and our residents misleading information.

Mayor Tait has characterized the MOU as everything from a nefarious plot to bilk the City out of money to a sneaky attempt to giveaway the City’s biggest asset. Is it any wonder the Angels no longer want to continue this process?

For shame Mr. Mayor, for shame.

Read the rest of this entry »

As jubilant Angel players prepare for the playoffs and a hoped for appearance in the 2014 World Series, team owner, Arte Moreno, nixed further negotiations with the Anaheim City Council that would keep the team in Anaheim. Particularly now, fans do not welcome considering the possibility of losing the team to Tustin or any other city.

The yearlong impasse between the Council and Moreno has been detrimental to both parties. Moreno doesn’t need three more years to decide whether to stay or move his mega-moneymaker and the city’s mega tax generator. Regrettably, both sides neglect consideration of inveterate fans and their passionate investment in the Angels. Conspicuously absent is love of the game, so poignantly evidenced this week in every ballpark within which Derek Jeter appeared.

Moreno recently expressed a feigned caring for Angel fans to a Los Angeles Times’ reporter: “I’m very emotionally tied to the fans and the players.” In fact, Moreno cares much more about how much money the team will balloon his wallet: “I learned a long time ago there is no sentiment in it. . . . At the end of the day, it is business.” The Council, particularly Mayor Tait, shares Moreno’s penchant for money, wanting a bigger cut for the city of the revenue generated by the Angels and the future development of land juxtaposed to Angel Stadium.

Are Council members ready, particularly Tait, to permit Moreno to walk off, a losing decision for Anaheim? Local taxpayers would foot the bill to raze an outdated stadium—and a city treasury would never see millions of dollars in new tax revenue. The question to answer is whether the Anaheim City Council will give Moreno the contract he wants so he stays or continues the stalemate too long—and Moreno takes his ball and glove to get richer somewhere else. What would happen if Tait and others were to remain steadfast for a bigger piece of the Angel financial pie than Moreno is willing to serve?

A study by CSL (2012) quantified the financial benefits to Anaheim resulting directly from Angels baseball. The failure to extend the team’s contract through 2036 assures the loss to the city of $3,000,000 in net new cumulative spending. And approximately 2,500 full-time jobs would end along with $4,700,000 annually in cumulative taxes and other direct revenues. Moreover, 88% of persons who buy Angel tickets do not live in Anaheim (CSL, 2012, p. 4).

There is enough pie to divide between Moreno and Anaheim so that he and the city feel financially sated. If time runs out, Anaheim is the big and permanent loser.


Conventions, Sports & Leisure International (CSL). (2012). Economic Impact          Study of Angels Baseball. Retrieved from

 —Hugh Glenn

ward conspiracy alertIt’s been a year since the Anaheim City Council voted 4-1 (Mayor Tait in opposition) to approve a non-binding MOU establishing the framework of an agreement between the city and the Angels that would have financed the renovation of the stadium at no cost to taxpayers, and generated economic activity on idle city-owned land in the stadium district. This framework was all upside for the city, with the Angels shouldering the risk.

Not wanting such a good deal for Anaheim to go unchallenged, gadflies Cynthia Ward and Brian Chuchua subsequently formed a non-profit called CATER for the express purpose of filing lawsuits against the City of Anaheim. Their first was against the Angels MOU, alleging Brown Act violations.

Prominent among their raft of allegations of shadowy dealings has been a much bally-hooed claim that an report by Convention, Sports and Leisure on the Angels’; economic impact was furtively altered to mislead the public.

Earlier this year, CATER leader Ward wrote:

When released, the report was City stamped to indicate it was distributed to the Council majority prior to the Council meeting of September 3. Yet the version of the report released for public review was an altered version, edited after the Council meeting and purged of a glaring mistake with the potential to discredit the “experts” findings, upon which the Council based their approvals. The City Attorney’s response to CATER’s letter to Cure and Correct the Brown Act violation confirmed the two versions, as Michael Houston included both copies (one stamped, one not) in his response.

Can you imagine the repercussions should the government begin approving expenditures based on one set of documents — and then alter those records to make them more palatable to the public prior to their release?!

To ensure no one missed the import of these revelations, Ward liberally used bold-type and text  coloration emphasize this was really, truly an important point!

Read the rest of this entry »

The Ministry of Truth was one of four government bureaucracies that rule fictional Oceania in George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 – the propaganda arm of Ingsoc; its job to twist stated reality to suit the extant needs of the Party.

The full-page political advertisement purchased by CATER in yesterday’s Anaheim Bulletin ad embodies the spirit of the Ministry of Truth, from the “Stop Lying” headline down through the catalog of straw man arguments rolled out by these gadflies:

Ignorance is Strength

Ignorance is Strength

The “Stop Lying” logo is, ironically, more accurately directed at the authors of this ad. Let’s start with the headline:

“The Truth About The Angel Stadium Deal”

The truth is there is no Angel Stadium deal. There is only a non-binding MOU that establishes a framework for the negotiations between the city and the Angels. CATER’s claim that there is an “Angel Stadium Deal” is an untruth.

Read the rest of this entry »

The “Keep the Angels” campaign has taken out a series of full-page ads in the Anaheim Bulletin, making the case for the city and the Angels to conclude a deal that keeps the team in Anaheim, rebuilds the city-owned stadium at no cost to taxpayers and generates economic activity on dormant city-owned stadium land.

Last week’s ad was a trip down memory lane to the 1990s, when the Los Angeles Rams left Anaheim for St. Louis:

Keep the Angels rams ad

Read the rest of this entry »

john phillipsAM790 conservative talk radio host and OC Register opinion columnist penned a column for the editorial pages today calling on the Anaheim City Council to approve a deal with the Angels along the lines of the negotiation framework approved last September. Here’s an excerpt from his column:

Fast forward to today, the stadium is 18 years older and is estimated to need up to $150 million in additional capital improvements. The Angels and Anaheim have been negotiating a new lease for three years. During this time frame, under the current mayor and city council, the city has had four different city managers. So far the city has spent more than $325,000 on various studies and appraisals.

As part of this process we’ve learned that the Angels have pledged to assume 100 percent of the responsibility for needed capital improvements in exchange for the ball club garnering the rights to develop a portion of the parking lot for commercial purposes. But the city would potentially be giving up ticket revenue and parking revenue, among other considerations.

In my opinion, even with trade-offs, this is a huge win for taxpayers. The honest truth is the city doesn’t have $150 million laying around to fix the stadium on its own. But if this proposal is adopted, the stadium gets fixed and the city doesn’t have to touch a dime from the general fund. Plus, if the development turns out to be a bust, taxpayers won’t take a bath because all of the risk would be assumed by the Angels.

It’s a good column that puts the issue in perspective, and you can read the whole thing here.


Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray

Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray

On Friday, Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray spoke out strongly on the city-commissioned appraisal in particular and the state of negotiations with the Angels in general, making it clear there is a deal at

“We have the framework in front of us that keeps the team in Anaheim, renovates an old stadium, and doesn’t impact our taxpayers. It’s time to get a deal done that’s real, with real benefits.”

That struck a nerve with blogger Mat Gleason, who blogs Halos Heaven as “Rev Halofan.” Yesterday, he published an earnest post in which he vividly expressed his response:

Anaheim Rep Kris Murray Fights to Keep Angels

Someone Finally Stands Up To Mayor Tom Tait

Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait had been waiting for his big blockbuster report to be assembled. He was going to show us. He had a formula to measure value and it was all in simplistic dollar signs and wow did he ever show us.

Tom Tait’s commissioned appraisal of the value of the land on which Anaheim Stadium sits has been delivered. To nobody’s surprise the land is worth more as a piece of dirt ($325 Million) than with the stadium and surrounding development ($225 Million).

Arte Moreno basically transformed the Angels franchise into an economic powerhouse that benefits the City of Anaheim as well as the quality of life to the surrounding area. As a reward for a job well done and a commitment to the region, the City council had offered Moreno the land to develop for a dollar a year rent provided he assume all costs of maintaining the land and stadium – costs which the city now assume.

Read the rest of this entry »


Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray speaking against CPV proposal at OCWD.

Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray 

Bill Shaikin penned a new column on the Angels-Anaheim drama, comparing and contrasting the reactions of Mayor Tom Tait and Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray:

Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray, one of the City Council members who voted to approve the framework, agreed that the land had value but said the city should not opt for the “short-term economic gain” of a sale at maximum value over a long-term relationship with the Angels.

“We have the framework in front of us that keeps the team in Anaheim, renovates an old stadium, and doesn’t impact our taxpayers,” she said. “It’s time to get a deal done that’s real, with real benefits.”

Murray became the first City Council member to call for finalizing an agreement since Tait started campaigning against the proposed deal seven months ago.

The Angels say they want to stay in Anaheim, but they have held exploratory talks about the feasibility of building a new ballpark in Tustin or Irvine. They could opt out of their Angel Stadium lease as soon as 2016.

“There are acres of land all around the stadium sitting fallow,” Murray said. “Why would we drive out the Angels in the hope, a very slim hope, that the exact same thing won’t happen to this property? I’m not interested in adding another empty lot in Anaheim.”

Read the rest of this entry »

LA Times sports columnist Bill Shaikin is reporting that the Angels have met with Great Park developer Five Point Communities to discuss the possibility of relocating the team to Irvine:

The Angels have met with the developer of the Orange County Great Park property to see whether the construction of a new ballpark might be feasible on that Irvine site.

The news comes the day before the city of Anaheim is set to release an appraisal of the Angel Stadium property. The Angels have grown frustrated over negotiations for a deal that would keep the team in Anaheim for the long term, and Angels executives have opened discussions for potential alternative sites in Tustin and now Irvine.

The Irvine City Council agreed last November to let FivePoint Communities build 688 acres of the Great Park in exchange for permission to build 4,606 homes nearby, with both projects on land formerly used as a Marine Corps air base. The property is near the intersection of the 5 and 405 freeways — the “El Toro Y” — with an adjacent train station.

“The Angels have met with FivePoint Communities as part of exploring our options,” team spokeswoman Marie Garvey said Thursday.

You can read the rest of the column here.

Now, if you’re a member of the torpedo-the-Angels-negotiations claque, clear your mind and repeat after me: The Angels have nowhere to go. The Angels have nowhere to go, The Angels have nowhere to go.

The city-commissioned appraisal of the Angel Stadium property is out. Here is the executive summary by Waronzof Associates. The 154-acre site is evaluated for both continued stadium use and redevelopment use under both fee simple interest and leasehold interest scenarios.

Fee Simple Interest

Continued Stadium Use Premise: $245,000,000

Redevelopment Premise – $325,000,000


Leasehold Interest

Continued Stadium Use Premise: $225,000,000

Redevelopment Premise: $300,000,000


It would seem to me that the latter is more applicable, since no one is talking about selling the property to the Angels.

Anaheim Blog today received a copy of this letter sent by Convention, Sports & Leisure to Councilwoman Lucille Kring, in which the firm rejected “conflict of interest” claims being fanned by some local gadflies and picked activists opposed, and reported on by the Voice of OC.

This story was “broken” by a VOC commenter, “Anaheimer” (aka Kevin Hogan, part gadfly Cynthia Ward’s claque). The conjured “conflict” was the claim that CSL parent company Legends Entertainment was selected as Angels Baseball’s new food service contractor because the CSL report arrived at the unremarkable conclusion that the Angels have a positive economic impact on the city.

The key part of the Voice of OC article casting doubt on CSL’s assertion of its independence from Legend’s food service business:

Yet filings with the state of Texas, where CS&L is based, indicate that the consulting and hospitality firms have the same top executives.

The Legends website lists Dan Smith as “President, Hospitality,” a position he has apparently held since at least 2012. However, on a 2013 filing with the Texas Secretary of State, Smith is listed as president of CS&L.

Additionally, Texas filings show three other executives for CS&L also serving as executives at Legends Hospitality LLC. They include David Checkett, David Hammer and Marty Greenspun.

Despite these filings, the parent company’s letter claims that “Legends management nor staff have involvement in the day-to-day operations of CSL or have any influence on projects in which CSL provides advisory services.”

The letter from CSL directly addresses this part of the VOC story:

Dear Council Member Kring:

We have followed some of the recent reports attempting to cast a false light on CSL, Legends and our recent work for the City of Anaheim. As we have stated in the past, CSL and the various operations of Legends, are run as completely separate divisions, including our customers in the Legends Hospitality line of business. Any discussion with the Angels regarding Legends Hospitality’s food and beverage services took place completely independently of the CSL work for the City. As such, we categorically deny any implied wrongdoing between the two.

Furthermore, no Legends Hospitality management or staff had any input or knowledge whatsoever of the work performed by CSL on behalf of the City, and no CSL management personnel working on this project for the City, or any other CSL project, were at any time involved any Legends Hospitality negotiations or other related discussions with the Angels. Additionally, we feel that it is important to note that Dan Smith is not an officer of CSL nor has he ever served as President of CSL, nor has he had any interaction whatsoever with the analyses conducted by CSL for any project it conducts, including our work for the City of Anaheim.

During the original CSL acquisition process, officers of Legends various divisions, including Legends Hospitality, of which Mr. Smith is, were used in the CSL company tax filings. This formality is in the process of being adjusted to reflect CSL’s actual responsibilities and leadership structure. Bill Rhoda was serving as president of CSL prior to and after the date of the acquisition. Mr. Rhoda has over 20 years of professional sports experience, including analysis of economic impact in markets throughout the country.

That didn’t seem very difficult to clear up. The Voice of OC article was published on April 24. The letter to Kring from CSL is dated April 25. Although the VOC article states that “Legends spokesman Eric Gelfand declined to comment,” I have no idea how much time Gelfand was given to provide a comment. Since CSL is an independent subsidiary of Legends, I’m guessing Gelfand declined to comment because he didn’t have the facts readily at hand.  It would seem allotting just a little more time to ascertaining the truth of the matter could have led to a more complete and factual story.

Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Shaikin has a column that, I think, fairly and accurately sums up why negotiations between the City and Anaheim and the Angels are stalled:

You’re the mayor. A guy walks into City Hall and offers to spend half a billion bucks to revitalize property owned by the city, at no cost to the city. What do you say?

If you’re Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait, you call it a taxpayer giveaway.

This is not a knock at Tait. This is a tip of the cap toward a mayor who has been so incredibly successful in framing the debate surrounding the Angels’ stadium lease negotiations that the process has ground to a dead halt.

It has been six months since the Anaheim City Council voted to approve the framework of a deal designed to keep the Angels in town for the long term, and to determine how to cover the estimated $150 million needed to keep Angel Stadium up and running for the long term.
The Angels first asked the city for cash. The city, properly, said no.

So the two sides agreed the Angels would cover that $150 million and, in exchange, would lease the land surrounding the stadium — the parking lots — for $1 per year. If the Angels successfully developed the land, they could make back that money, and maybe more.

In Anaheim, the mayor has one vote on the City Council. Tait was outvoted, 4-1, but he has publicly objected to proceeding with the deal ever since.

It is not so much that Tait is the voice of the opposition. It is that Tait is the only voice.

Shaikin goes on:

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been out of town and returned to read this article in the Voice of OC: “Conflict Questions Cloud Report on Angels’ Impact.”

The “conflict questions” pertain to the fact that Conventions, Sports & Leisure, the consulting firm that prepared a report for the city on the positive economic benefits of having the Angels in Anaheim, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Legends Hospitality, which Angels Baseball recently hired to replace Aramark as its food service contractor.

Few terms are bandied about with more frequency and less understanding than “conflict of interest.” More often than not, it is used just to muddy the water by partisans who want to suggest a policy or person they oppose isn’t on the up-and-up.

The usual claque of Angels negotiations critics are seizing on this to make the claim the CSL study concluded that the Angels are a net benefit to Anaheim so that Legends would get the food service contract.

How are we supposed to take this sort of half-baked thinking seriously? We’re supposed to seriously consider the crack-pot idea that the Angels awarded their food service contract not because Legends would do a better job than Aramark of providing a positive experience for Angels fans – but in order secure a report that, in essence, arrived at the uncontroversial conclusion that the Angels are good for the city.

Even the critics of the Angels negotiations takes pains to say they want the Angels to say – a stance they presumably would not take if they believed the team to be a drain on the city.

Read the rest of this entry »

anaheim_angelsThe OC Register reports on the presentation made to the Anaheim City Council last night by sports consultant Daniel Barrett of Barrett Sports Group. Some excerpts:

A consultant on Tuesday told the City Council that it could cost $600 million to $700 million to relocate the Angels baseball team to another city within Southern California, likely financed with help from an outside investor.

“There have been discussions about Tustin. I don’t know if that’s real or not, but there are potential relocation areas,” said Daniel Barrett, founder of Barrett Sports Group, who is assisting Anaheim city officials with the stadium lease talks.

Barrett speculated that the Angels could also potentially move to Irvine or Industry. He also noted that Los Angeles city officials could change their mind about building a football stadium adjacent to Staples Center and opt instead to build a baseball stadium.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Orange County Register published an interesting opinion article on Sunday by Chapman University President James Doti and economist Esmael Adibi, a “running the numbers” economic impact analysis based on the Angels-Anaheim negotiation framework. It won’t be surprising if some of the usual suspects who assail the Angels negotiations during public comments try to use the Doti/Adibi article as ammunition to lambaste the council majority.

The trouble is the flawed nature of the analysis.  For example, it refers to “proposed lease terms,” when they are instead simply framework within which to negotiate proposed lease terms for the council’s consideration.

Or take this statement, for example:

“In addition, the city would rebate to the Angels sales and property taxes it would otherwise receive from the property and any future development.”

The problem with this statement is it is untrue. Nothing in the negotiation framework requires the city to surrender tax revenue from development on the stadium site. The framework is non-binding, for one thing. And that isn’t what it is, for another. This is the pertinent section:

Read the rest of this entry »

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.



%d bloggers like this: