In the end, former Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu begged for the grace he and his regime always lacked.
Especially when it came to the doomed sale of Angel Stadium.
The Los Angeles Angels franchise in Anaheim has been laser focused on buying Angel stadium on the cheap for more than a decade – evidenced by two comically lopsided deals that collapsed about a decade apart.
The last fiasco unleashed a historic, unvarnished public look at how that city hall operates in the shadows.
Especially when it comes to Angel Stadium.
[Read: Who’s on First in Angel Stadium Deal? FBI Details Lobbyist Web in Corruption Probe]
Required reading this past month were the federal court documents from Sidhu – where he shockingly detailed how he risked everything to give the Angels an unfair leg up in stadium negotiations.
Despite pleading for a house arrest or probation, a federal judge sentenced Sidhu to two months in prison.
[Read: Disgraced Former Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu Sentenced to Two Months in Prison]
Next up?
A brutal read from a state audit on the stadium lease showing how little revenue the city actually nets from the stadium lease, along with the bombshell revelation that city officials can’t really inspect the city stadium under the current lease contract negotiated back in 1996 by the administration of former Mayor Tom Daly.
[Read: CA Auditors: Anaheim Doesn’t Know if Angel Stadium is Trashed]
A Troubled Lease Nobody Talks About
It’s stunning to me that in all the public discussions about the future and proposed sale of Angel stadium in recent years, to my recollection, no top city official – not City Manager Jim Vanderpool or stadium manager Tom Morton or even City Attorney Rob Fabela – have ever said a word publicly about how weak the existing lease is for taxpayers.
Especially when it comes to being able to hold the tenant to commitments on maintenance of the facility – much less inspect anything.
Anaheim taxpayers had to wait for state auditors to tell them that, thanks to State Assemblyman Avelino Valencia, who was on the city council in the midst of the stadium scandal and later ordered the audit from his ensuing elected post in Sacramento.
Valencia said the state audit raises troubling questions about city officials and team lax stewardship over the stadium, noting that city officials should now negotiate to get maintenance inspections or consider going to court.
“Partnership to me, reflects a balanced approach to a situation or a problem, or in this case, an agreement that is fair to both parties. That just hasn’t been the case,” Valencia said in an interview.
He also raised questions about city executives’ poor management of the relationship with the Angels.
“It really comes down to who’s making the decisions,” Valencia said.
“I have been disappointed in the lack of alternative options that have been evaluated or provided by the city manager,” he said. “A city manager’s job is to provide the council with multiple options – regardless of what the council’s preference is.”
Sidhu’s pleadings and the state audit both raise similar troubling questions, mainly whether taxpayers can really depend on Anaheim public executives and politicians to manage very complex negotiations and facility maintenance.
Expect What You Inspect
A clear indication from the state audit is the stunning admission that city officials note they don’t really negotiate stadium leases to make money, but instead to keep the team.
“Anaheim officials told us that generating revenue from its lease agreement with Angels ownership was not a priority during the original negotiations,” California Auditor Grant Parks said in the stadium audit.
So far, that approach has accomplished neither.
After 30 years, the city of Anaheim has only netted $415,000 in net revenue – an average of about $1,100 a month – from leasing Angel Stadium to Major League Baseball, according to the audit.
Talk about affordable housing in a city constantly criticized by activists for not building enough of it.
[Read: Anaheim Inches Closer to Mandating Affordable Housing]
Meanwhile, the Angels have changed their name to the Los Angeles Angels and argue the public stadium is trashed – requiring overhauls funded by taxpayers if they are to stay long term.
The argument on sports team leases from Anaheim officials historically has been that the tax revenue from the boom in surrounding business around the stadium is where the locals make their money.
Except, numerous national economists and investigative journalists have proved that notion untrue in numerous studies and literature.
Yet despite the consistent losing record, none of these public officials are ever held accountable – except now for Sidhu.
With Sidhu’s sentencing, right after MLB Opening Day, there’s a natural political draw to declare victory, celebrate a new day with a new city council and move forward with new talks.
The elusive win-win, public-private sector partnership.
Tougher Negotiations?
On Friday, just ahead of the local team’s home opener, Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken released a public letter to Angels owner Arte Moreno calling for a restart of the relationship.
“I would like to have a better relationship with the owner of my baseball team,” Aitken told me during a Thursday phone interview, exhibiting a positive demeanour toward the Angels that some political observers in Anaheim have criticized.
In her letter to Moreno, she said, “My relationship as mayor with Angels ownership is the source of a lot of speculation. But, honestly, we don’t really have one. I want to change that for the better.”
In her interview with me, Aitken – noting she was raised by Midwestern transplants to Anaheim – said she’d rather focus on “picking flowers than lobbing bombs.”
The stadium is an important asset in her mind, one she told me that is hamstrung by “an archaic 30-year old lease.”
“I am not interested in relitigating the past,” Aitken wrote to Moreno.
Yet while remaining positive, Aitken also laid out numerous aggressive deal points in her letter to Moreno, concepts that have been artfully avoided in past years by city officials – if not met with hostility, like getting Anaheim back in the team name.
“My goal is simple,” Aikten wrote Moreno, “Let’s have an open and honest conversation about the future of baseball in Anaheim.”
One of the biggest points in her letter is getting the Los Angeles Angels to recognize Anaheim “prominently as the team’s location and partner.”
She also wants increased transparency, stadium inspections, public negotiation process and a host of others, like community workforce agreements.
Calls for a More Aggressive Approach
Other local stadium observers, like former Anaheim City Councilman Jose Moreno – no relation to Angels owner Arte Moreno – want to see a more aggressive tactic toward the Angels and public accountability for the city officials that were around Sidhu.
“Different players, same game,” said Moreno in a recent interview. “The culture of corruption is still very much in place.”
While Moreno credits a series of transparency reforms advocated by Aitken and ultimately adopted by the city council, he questions whether they really address the core issue in Anaheim.
“They don’t deter behaviour,” Moreno said of transparency reforms like expanded lobbyist registration and publication of official calendars.
“They avoid the fundamental issue: campaign dollars, political ambition,” said Moreno, a Democrat, echoing the sentiments of Anaheim’s former Mayor and popular OC Republican, Tom Tait.
While Tait isn’t a fan of campaign finance limitations, he acknowledges there’s a broken system in Anaheim where you have a small set of special interests that overwhelmingly fund political campaigns.
“That needs to be addressed. And I think the way to address it, is when you give these giant amounts through independent expenditures, then that a candidate should be restrained from voting on your issue for a number of years.”
At minimum, Tait said, relevant campaign contributions should be publicly disclosed on meeting agendas during relevant votes.
“The rule is if there’s a perception of conflict, the elected shouldn’t vote,” he said, adding,“To not erode the trust of government by the people.”
Tait has the most extensive record as an elected official opposing the Angels, voting against the original stadium lease in 1996 along with opposing a former failed stadium deal in 2013.
Anaheim Strikes Out on Accountability
Former Councilman Moreno lambasted the lack of accountability for city officials who worked with Sidhu to push through the lopsided stadium deal – heavily criticizing things like rehearsing city council meetings and failing to report lobbying activity.
“They’ve done nothing to investigate locally the Brown Act violations that independent investigators showed were happening,” Moreno said. “The City manager, on the heels of corruption, he got a raise and extension on contract … and the PIO (Public Information Officer) is still in place.”
[Read: Anaheim’s Chief Spokesman is Detailed in the Corruption Scandal; Now What?]
City council members could also have opened a criminal investigation, Moreno noted, forcing the local police department to inspect texts of relevant city officials, like the city manager and public information officer.
Playing Landlord
The big question in Anaheim is whether there’s the civic organizing depth and infrastructure to force change, to spur a real culture of civic accountability
So far, that kind of civic presence and organizing, much less impact on city council campaigns, has been lacking – despite the revelations of the FBI probe, the city’s independent investigations, the Sidhu pleadings and the state stadium audit.
Absent a real watchdog culture over city hall and after watching so many failed stadium deals – both in Anaheim and during my years in San Diego covering stadium talks for the San Diego Union Tribune – I wonder whether city officials are better off keeping public stadium relationships simple.
Instead of partnering with the MLB Angels, perhaps city officials should try on the role of landlord once the current lease runs out.
Charge rent for the stadium.
Keep the parking lots public.
Leave the baseball business to the pros.
The harsh reality may be that city officials’ just can’t afford to play the stadium game.
Not against hard-hitters like the Angels.
And without substantive campaign finance reform – like addressing the reality of independent spending campaigns steered to politicians – a slew of special interests essentially can get their negotiating counterparts elected.
You see how well that’s turned out for Angel Stadium.
Editor’s note: Ashleigh Aitken’s father, Wylie Aitken, chairs Voice of OC’s board of directors.