Anaheim Council majority agrees to extension of time for the Angels to leave

Anaheim Stadium Entrance

Anaheim Stadium Entrance

Another potential giveaway of hundreds of millions of dollars in city assets and future revenue was launched last night by the Chamber of Commerce controlled City Council majority of members Murray, Eastman, Kring and Brandman. The agenda item was slipped into the council agenda just prior to the long Labor Day weekend allowing little time for the public to notice or comment. The council took two actions last night. First they extended the time for the angels to leave until 2019. The second was an agreement setting the parameters of the negotiations for an extension of the lease for the next 60 years.

Anaheim Council critic Cynthia Ward provides a good outline of the potential impacts in a series of posts on the Orange Juice blog. You can check our her analysis at But put simply, it looks like the city’s starting position is to give away the Stadium District land, all future tax and fee revenues, and the development rights to the Stadium District for the bargain basement price of $1 a year. The angels would also have full rights to the naming of the team, meaning the Angels could drop the inclusion of any reference to the city.

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray (Photo: Chris Prevatt)

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray (Photo: Chris Prevatt)

The responsibility of any city council is to protect the assets of the city, develop those assets in the public interest, and to not give away public funds without comparable public benefit. The proposed starting point for negotiations does not meet even the spirit of those baseline responsibilities. It appears that the council majority, led by Kris Murray and her other Chamber of Commerce and Orange County Business Council owned (or significantly influenced) colleagues are conducting a fire sale on city assets and future tax revenues.

We note that once again, Mayor Tom Tait was the only voice of reason on the council. We have to wonder where this giveaway of public assets will end, and public benefit begin.

  6 comments for “Anaheim Council majority agrees to extension of time for the Angels to leave

  1. Greg Diamond
    September 4, 2013 at 8:05 am

    Honestly, the best thing about last night’s meeting is that it’s all captured on video — video that presumably will eventually be inducted into the “Stupidest and Most Venal Municipal Decisions of All Time” Hall of Fame.

  2. September 4, 2013 at 9:32 am

    Having the Angels is a considerable public benefit to the surrounding businesses and the baseball fans here. The deal allows Moreno to build a new stadium near the site of the current one. The cost for keeping the Angels here is far less than the cost of trying to lure another team here should the Angels leave. And yes I know about their contract with MLB, but as Al Davis and the Raiders proved time and again, a good lawsuit is all you need to move where you want to go.

  3. Ryan Cantor
    September 4, 2013 at 4:36 pm


    Please prove that the cost of keeping the Halos is less than attracting another team.

    Bonus points if you only use information provided to the public by either the Angels or the city of Anaheim.

    • September 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm

      You’re asking for costs for some expense that hasn’t happened. Try estimating the millions spent by Los Angeles to get an NFL expansion franchise that was awarded to Houston. Check out how much Cleveland paid to get the Browns back as an expansion franchise. What Houston paid to build a new stadium to have the Texans replace the Oilers. There is nothing stopping Moreno from building a stadium in Inglewood or Irvine; there’s lots of undeveloped land in OC..its a matter of finding the right spot. I like baseball. I am glad the Anaheim city council is doing what they can to keep the Angels. They did give up everything and have no cards left to play. But if it keeps the Angels here for the next two decades, they still generate a significant amount of income for the businesses near the stadium.

  4. junior
    September 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    “Anaheim Council majority agrees to extension of time for the Angels to leave”

    I don’t think your headline is accurate – it should read something like:

    “Anaheim Council majority agrees to extension of time for the Angels to decide on leaving or staying”

    I know – too long – but yours is not right.

  5. Ryan Cantor
    September 4, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    “Pass” was not an option. Want a second crack at the apple? Claiming that keeping the Angels costs far less than bringing in a new team is a claim you ought to be able to back up with some facts.

    Well, to be more specific, it’s a claim the city of Anaheim ought to be able to back up with some facts. It’d be a much easier conversation.

    There’s actually A LOT in the way of Mr. Moreno building a new stadium. Four things in particular that could hold him up for the better part of a decade. The four fine letters of C-E-Q and of course, A.

    Anyway, point of order, two decades is 20 years. The vote yesterday keeps them to, well, sometime between 2016 and 2019. If I recall, there were quite a few other option dates in the MoU as well.

Comments are closed.