Angels Talk to FivePoint as Stadium Appraisal Released


The Los Angeles Times reports that representatives from the Los Angeles Angels met with representatives of FivePoint, the developer of Irvine’s Great Park, on a possible stadium site for the Angels near the El Toro Y.  Of course, both sides are saying nothing other than a meeting took place, but the LA Times has more here.  The location makes a lot of sense and would certainly make it easier for fans in South County, the fastest growing part of OC, to make it to games without the gridlock of the Orange Crush.

From the story:

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.

FivePoint spokesman Aaron Curtiss declined to comment.

It is unclear whether FivePoint has any interest in putting a ballpark on the 688-acre site. The Angel Stadium site covers about 155 acres, with about 20 of those for the stadium itself.

Craig Reem, spokesman for the city of Irvine, said the city has heard “not a peep” about any talks between the Angels and FivePoint but said the development plan pitched to the city earlier by FivePoint covers almost all of those 688 acres. The proposed uses include a 188-acre golf course, a wildlife corridor, and a 176-acre recreational sports complex — “twice the size of Disneyland,” as The Times reported in November.

Now this news comes on the heels of the release of the appraisal for Anaheim Stadium with the team AND without the team, assuming that baseball operations have ended.

Angels Stadium

From the story in the LA Times:

The land upon which Angel Stadium sits is worth $325 million if the ballpark is demolished and $225 million if the Angels stay and the surrounding land is leased to a developer, according to an appraisal commissioned by the city of Anaheim that was released Friday.

The appraisal could help the Angels and the city agree on how much money Anaheim should get in a new stadium lease deal with the team. Yet the appraisal also could harden the stances of Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait, who considers the proposed deal a taxpayer giveaway, and the Angels, who have considered walking away from the idea of developing any land surrounding Angel Stadium and simply focusing on whether to renovate the ballpark or build a new one elsewhere.

The highest value for the land, according to the appraisal, would come if the Angels move out and the city could sell the entire 153-acre site. If the Angels stay, the appraisal assumes the 133 acres surrounding the stadium would be developed but does not assume the team would be the developer. Tait and other city officials say they want the Angels to stay.

The Angels’ current lease requires the city to provide 12,500 surface parking spaces. The appraised values assume an agreement to convert at least some of those spaces to parking structures. No such agreement is in place.

In a letter to the city last week, Angels President John Carpino said he was concerned because an appraisal that did not consider the Angels’ parking rights and capital contribution to Angel Stadium could produce an unreasonably high value and “lead to an unworkable situation.” The appraisal expressly omits any consideration of the costs of stadium renovation.


Angels fan Cynthia Ward has already chimed in about this via the comments section.  She writes:

“Arte is producing smoke screens because when the appraisals come out tomorrow, they are clearly not going to be favorable to him. Gee, what could be the problem? Do you think maybe the appraiser documented in black and white for the world to see that prime real estate nestled in the elbow of major freeways, directly up the street from a draw for 20 million annual visitors, on unpolluted land that doesn’t need to be cleaned up (hello Great Park) and fully entitled for over a million sq. ft of new development just MIGHT be worth more without a Stadium and its parking encumbrances on it? As it stands now nobody wants to buy the lofts in the area, and the office building is so empty they are giving away subsidized space to the drowning-in-red-ink Chamber of Commerce in desperation to get ANYONE in there. It turns out people do NOT want to try functioning day to day around traffic jams, exhaust fumes, and loudspeakers. So yeah, I think Arte knows the appraisal shows Anaheim is WAY better off without his subsidy sucking team on that property and he is terrified, and willing to use whatever distractions he can to keep people from thinking this through logically. His only hope is to trust that Anaheim loves our team more than we resent the owner who mocked us and took advantage of us. Maybe we do, but we are not going to lose our minds over that fandom either.

Perhaps Ms. Ward, who is one of the people who run the “Keep the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” ought to start a new page of “Buh-bye Angels.”   Congrats on breaking 1,400 “likes” and thanks for banning me from commenting; Jason Young is one of the other site administrators who frequently complains about censorship despite being a hypocrite.  And the office building she talks about might have some vacancies, because the rent is a little pricey, and its not empty by any stretch.

We have a copy of the appraisal’s executive summary and you can read it here.

What’s missing from the equation is any plan of what would be developed on the Stadium site and by whom.  The city has had nearly 50 years of failed ideas for developing the area without a single idea becoming reality.  If Tait truly wants the Angels to stay, playing hardball seems an odd choice.  But then again, the Mayor’s kids who now have financial interest in property near Angels Stadium, can get rich off of land that their dad transferred ownership to would have a higher value without a baseball team.

What’s curious is there is still undeveloped land near Angels Stadium that’s still unsold and undeveloped, and there isn’t a line of developers waiting to take advantage of that land.  Without a developer or series of developers expressing interest in the Stadium site for private development, all Tait has is an appraisal of what it’s worth without a team.  Subtract the cost of demolishing a stadium that can range from $15 million to $50 million (depending on the materials that need to be disposed of) that is completely the city’s financial burden, and the difference lessens to a degree.  But the Angels talking with other communities simply demonstrates that there are options other than Anaheim no matter what the “Angels aren’t going anywhere” crowd has to say.

But heck, if Tait has a plan for getting rid of the Angels, making his kids rich, and bringing the team to Irvine, let’s hear it. I’m perfectly OK with the LA Angels building a new park, creating hundreds if not thousands of union jobs, and playing in my city.  But Mayor Steven Choi may have some concerns about Feng Shui of the new ballpark you know.

  38 comments for “Angels Talk to FivePoint as Stadium Appraisal Released

  1. May 2, 2014 at 11:51 am

    Before everyone at OJB loses their mind over the appraisal, I will remind them that previous city estimates on the value of the stadium and surrounding land have ranged from $30 million to $380 million, so the final estimate was well within that range.

  2. Greg Diamond
    May 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    Thanks for the reminder, Dan, that the City was going to give away property for 66-99 years when it could not even narrow down the value of that property to WITHIN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE!

    I think it’s time for you to watch the videos of entire discussions from the three Anaheim Council meetings in September — including the initial presentation by “our negotiator” Charles Black. Maybe you will suddenly understand what has been going on there.

    • May 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm

      Charles Black is a baseball professional, not a property appraiser. But even then, he provided a range of value that the actual value of the land fell.

      But without a team there, Tait’s kids stand to profit handsomely from the ownership interest in nearby property Tait gave them without a dime.

      The city was going to lease, for a nominal fee, land that Moreno is likely to spend up to $500 million of his own money to develop. Tell me Greg, whatever became of SportsTown USA?

    • May 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm

      “I can’t adequately express how close Anaheim taxpayers came to not knowing the value of what they were giving away prior to doing so — and how relatively few of us stood in the way. And now it is clear that we were right to urge caution and transparency. It’s a great day both for Anaheim, for transparency, and for government accountability. ” — Diamond on OJB.

      Transparency unless you want to know who all the members of CATER are or where the funding comes from.

  3. Ryan Cantor
    May 2, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Dan, for the record, you weren’t banned. As I understand it, you posted a comment that appeared to violate Facebook’s terms of service. That comment was removed. You then mocked the administrators of the page and repeated the same comment, apparently violating the terms of service for a second time.

    As such, your posting privileges were temporarily revoked. You can post comments by submitting them to an administrator, who will moderate the comment to ensure conformance with community standards.

    That’s the same rule you apply here. I don’t see any reason why you should feel disenfranchised or upset, but honestly– I’m not surprised you’re demanding a double standard. It’s an equal application of what you do every day.

    Stay classy.

  4. May 2, 2014 at 2:13 pm

    A Violation of Facebook’s terms of service?! What? I left a comment under a shared photo of Tom Tait at Angels Stadium on opening day where he wrote “Go Angels” and said, “how appropriate because he wants the Angels to go.” That was removed. So I posted it again. I used no bad language and no racy photos. Mocking the administrators of the page! Guilty as charged. But its always OK in your double-standard world. Spare me the censorship act.

    • Ryan Cantor
      May 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm

      Well, Dan, part of running your own Facebook page is that you get to interpret what a breach of conduct is.

      Again, this isn’t any different than the standard you apply here. I don’t see any reason why you should be upset or feel disenfranchised– though I’m not surprised.

      No one forces you to view that Facebook page, Dan.

      • May 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm

        so to be clear Ryan, it wasn’t Facebook’s TOS I violated but the tender feelings of those who worship at the Church of Tait. Congrats on crossing 1400; the Save the Angels page is more than 35,000

        • Ryan Cantor
          May 2, 2014 at 3:21 pm

          No, Dan, it’s because an administrator thought you violated the terms of service. While it’s clear you don’t agree with that sentiment, that doesn’t make it any less true. Again, if you want to comment, you can have your comment moderated just like you do to every single one of my posts here.

          I see you’re back to comparing size again, like it’s a major indicator of value or importance. In this case, it’s largely an indicator of who has more money– which isn’t news to anyone. But, thanks for highlighting that those who run that page are poor in comparison to Arte Moreno and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. I applaud your deductive powers.

          Also, “Church of Tait” is incredibly and needlessly offensive.

          • May 2, 2014 at 3:51 pm

            It’s not size, but volume.

            And it’s exactly the Church of Tait; don’t forget to bow before the master who is infallible.

          • May 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm

            Go back and read Facebook’s TOS and explain how I violated it Ryan?

  5. Ltpar
    May 2, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    Dan, we are in agreement on this one. I think the Feng Shui would be all right as long as home plate faced east. Have to admit, if handled properly by the City it could be a great long term revenue generator for development and maintenance of the Great Park. Another consideration might be, why not make it a joint use facility and bring up the San Diego Chargers since they are looking for a new home?

    • May 2, 2014 at 3:52 pm

      the days of joint use stadiums for football and baseball are gone Pat. The only one that exists today is in Oakland

  6. Ryan Cantor
    May 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    I don’t recall you extending that courtesy to me.

    So, no.

    • May 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm

      Our Terms of Service are easily accessible here for anyone to see. If you can’t figure out how to scroll and click on links, I can’t help you.

  7. Ryan Cantor
    May 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    Dan, that’s a hateful anti-Catholic comment.


    Chris– tolerating this crap is on you. Don’t let it happen.

    • May 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm

      “Church” is a Catholic-only phrase. Did I break a commandment by taking the Lord Tait’s name in vain? Spare me your mock outrage.

      • Ryan Cantor
        May 2, 2014 at 4:54 pm

        No, Dan, you did it by being an insensitive jerk. I’m not going to explain how hate speech works to you.

        But hey, run around repeating it like an unstoppable moron. You deserve it.

  8. Steve
    May 2, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    Angel Stadium, as reconfigured, is no longer a “join” use stadium. It’s actually quite a pleasant stadium that works quite well for baseball, thank you very much.

    One other thing; I’ve seen you describe Angel Stadium with words like “crumbling” and “aged.” Well, aren’t lots of other baseball stadiums “aged”? As for “crumbling,” I was at Wednesday’s game and you’re out of your mind…that stadium is in fine shape and there is simply no compelling reason for a new stadium.

  9. May 2, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Steve — good catch on the typo. Angels Stadium is the fourth oldest park in the majors. Go to a game somewhere else: SF, CitiField in Queens, Camden Yards…you will see the difference a new stadium makes

  10. Ryan Cantor
    May 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    DItto for Facebook, genius.

    • May 2, 2014 at 5:02 pm

      Onion thin skin; not a baseball fan’s page anyway. Do you know the Angels are second in the majors in runs scored to surrendered? Oakland is #1. Hamilton comes back, Trout and Albert keep hitting and the bullpen holds up and look out October. Not that you actually care. Been to a game yet this season?

  11. Steve
    May 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Oh yeah, and what exactly IS that difference? Every field you cited is set in a dense, urban environment. That’s what gives those fields a particular “flavor.”

    Where, exactly, is such a place in Orange County?

    Not all stadiums are like those you mention. But here’s the thing…they don’t NEED to be. Angel Stadium is a fine baseball field with its own unique qualities and age alone isn’t a compelling reason to build a new stadium.

    • May 2, 2014 at 5:15 pm

      Nicer seats, cleaner an more modern bathrooms, better concession choices…I could go on. Yes, the Big A is a fine field. We deserve better.

  12. May 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    For Mr. Zenger:
    David Zenger

    Posted May 2, 2014 at 5:01 PM

    “In a world where CSL can get $30K for 11 pages of pictures and Jordan Brandman can get $25,000 for plagiarizing a worthless “analysis” nothing is improper or embarrassing. To be embarrassed presupposes a sense of shame in the first place.

    I see Mr. Business of Baseball is now claiming Blackie was on the level since nobody really knew the real value – $30 to $350 mil. And that only goes to re-enforce the reality of wanton disregard of the public trust: to give away something of which you didn’t even know the value.

    There really is something evil going on in Anaheim, and I don’t think I have ever used that word in a political context before.”

    You left out in a world where a fired at-will employee can try and blackmail the county into a six figure job or a lawsuit of $1 million for getting fired and still claim to be a champion f the taxpayer, really? Hypocrite.

    • Ryan Cantor
      May 2, 2014 at 5:12 pm

      Look at that. A personal attack from Dan in response to a political critique.

      Stay classy, hombre.

      • May 3, 2014 at 12:35 pm

        No, mine was a political critique

  13. Ryan Cantor
    May 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Looking to demonstrate your superiority again?

    Hey, everyone, DAN KNOWS ABOUT BASEBALL. He must be better than me.

    Don’t look now, Dan– but your pinstripes are showing.

  14. Steve
    May 2, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    None of those “shortcomings” requires building a new stadium to get them “fixed”…assuming one considers those major shortcomings, which I don’t.

    All it takes is some remodeling. And new concessions contracts…not a new stadium.

  15. Gustavo Arellano
    May 2, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    Dan writing about baseball is simply risible…

    • May 2, 2014 at 10:40 pm

      That’s YOU writing about baseball. You couldn’t explain the infield fly rule without Google.

  16. Cynthia Ward
    May 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Dan Chmielewski
    May 2, 2014 at 5:15 pm
    Nicer seats, cleaner an more modern bathrooms, better concession choices…I could go on. Yes, the Big A is a fine field. We deserve better.

    No sir, YOU do not deserve anything, not on the dime of the Anaheim taxpayer. Would you like to become one? The only “we” in these negotiations are the landlord (taxpayers who paid off that stadium from many many years of bonds) and the tenant (the guy who failed to use the revenue stream afforded him in the 1996 Lease agreement to handle the maintenance agreed to, and now wants more money from us, while hosing us for the last of the name without compensation) that WE does not include Irvine residents. You want to invite Arte to Irvine? Have at it Dan, good luck getting Five Points to pony up the free land, or will Irvine purchase the land back from Five Points and donate it to Arte? And then agree to bond for a new stadium because if Arte is not going to pay for rehab of an existing stadium he gets for free he is not going to pay even more for a new stadium. Good luck explaining to a bunch of vets that their graves produce bad feng shui to Five Points non-native buyers but a noisy traffic inducing stadium is somehow a great neighbor. And waive CEQA and fast track entitlements because despite the 3 extra years we gave Arte, that time flies when dealing with the gridlock of local government, especially given a place that failed to produce a PARK in how many years with how many millions? Yeah good luck getting the same leadership to produce a stadium overnight, at taxpayer expense. That’s a real threat.

    No I don’t want the Angels leave and I have my on highly emotional reasons for that, but even less do I want to be kicked around by a team owner who wants to treat Anaheim like a bunch of hicks he can take to the cleaners.

    So Dan, YOU DESERVE NOTHING from Anaheim taxpayers, not better bathrooms, not better concessions, nothing. If you as a customer want to demand those things of Arte to draw your entertainment dollars you have at it, but right now you are spending MY money and I don’t want it spent that way. Thanks anyway.

    • Ryan Cantor
      May 2, 2014 at 11:13 pm


    • May 5, 2014 at 9:53 am

      Cynthia –
      Actually, we do. Anaheim’s city fathers invited to Angels to this city 50 years ago and it served as a catalyst for growth. When I come to your city, be it for Disney, for Angels, for Ducks, for anything, the taxpayers are on the dock for making it an attractive place for me to visit to spend my money in your city. Just like my city is on the dock for making it a great place for you to spend your money.

      Irvine has about 110,000 people fewer than Anaheim, and yet we’re considered the economic hub of OC — just ask your lawyer because that is why they decided to Occupy OC in Irvine and not Anaheim. When we were looking at places to live in OC, we looked at Anaheim. The poor performance of the local schools compared to Irvine or even Tustin is why we bought in Irvine.

      Traffic problem? Welcome to OC. Heavy traffic is the norm not the exception. And with the Kings/Ducks and Yankees/Angels going over tonight, yep, there will be traffic and lots of dollars being spent in Anaheim bars and restaurants tonight.

      Arte didn’t screw you out of the name. It was the team’s original name and the vast majority of the team’s history excluded the name “Anaheim.” I don’t remember the “Anaheim Rams” playing in the NFL. The WFL (remember them) played in Anaheim too under “The Southern California Sun” And there’s the “LA Kiss” of Arena Football League. Lastly, the courts determined Arte could rename the team and how many millions did the city waste on that legal fight?

      The stadium and land have value? Then sell it and realize that value. Its not like the city hasn’t had 50 years to do something with the land around the park. Get the city out of the stadium business.

      But do not come here and suggest you don’t want the Angels to leave when its very clear you do. Been to a game this year? But by all means, launch another lame “Angels” Facebook page that appeals to a tiny section of the population

  17. May 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    Dodger Stadium at Chevez didn’t make a new stadium, but during the off season for the last four years has made major upgrades and improvements. Why didn’t Anaheim? That’s the question.

    Dan, you almost always seem to “miss” the big picture question. I don’t know if you do it because you want to miss it, or if you do it because you just don’t see the big question.

    If it is really important for the Angels to be playing in Anaheim, then why are the Angels not making the investments into their “home”?

    • May 5, 2014 at 9:37 am

      I’ve written before, I think its money better spent on building a new park in Anaheim next to the old one. It assures the Angels stay in Anaheim long term and provides lots of good union jobs for the construction of a new stadium and the tear down of the old one. If you remember the last remodel, fans stayed away in droves and I remember getting great seats for an Angels-Red Sox series for $5 a seat because construction made it very difficult to really enjoy the game.

      I actually like the changes at Dodger Stadium, but the remodel at Fenway has been not welcome by many Sox purists — stands on the Green Monster? Ugh? The remodel of the park in the late 80s negatively affected the wind and placed shadows that make afternoon games tough on outfielders. There have been multiple plans to build a new Fenway in Boston for years, but the new owners of the Sox just keep jacking up ticket prices so even bleecher seats are wicked expensive.

      I didn’t miss the big picture question, but my answer isn’t what you want to hear. I think it makes a lot more sense to build a new park as part of a larger development in Anaheim that gives people a reason to visit the stadium site even when it’s not baseball season. Perhaps the city ought to just offer to sell the land around the stadium to Moreno all together. But then again, look to the city of Atlanta….Turner Field is less than 20 years old and the Braves are moving to a new state-o-the art ballpark in Cobb County. It could happen here too.

  18. junior
    May 4, 2014 at 2:51 am

    I am Catholic and did not read anything like that into Dan’s comment.

Comments are closed.