“Keep the Angels in Anaheim” Rally – 4:30 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall

keep the angels_logoThis went out from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce deal:

Keep the Angels in Anaheim!

We need your attendance at a special Rally to Keep the Angels on Tuesday at 4:30 PM in front of Anaheim City Hall!

 As you know, the Angels’ lease at Anaheim Stadium is up in the next few years, and the City and Angels Baseball are in negotiations to extend the lease. The Council has adopted a broad framework around which the City will negotiate with the Angels to extend the lease. Under that framework:

  • The Angels will extend the lease to 2057, keeping the Angels in Anaheim for almost 50 years.
  • The Angels will assume the obligation to pay for $150 million in needed upgrades to the Stadium, saving the taxpayers from having to pay.
  • The Angels will partner with the City to develop a dining/entertainment/retail district next to the stadium similar to what we see around other major league stadiums. This development will bring thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity in Anaheim.

The City Council adopted this framework on a 4-1 vote with Council Members Gail Eastman, Kris Murray, Lucille Kring, and Jordan Brandman supporting the proposal and Mayor Tom Tait opposing it. 

We have helped launch a new coalition, Keep the Angels, and will be fighting to support the framework adopted by the Council which we believe will keep the Angels in town and promote even more economic opportunity in our City. You can find out more about this coalition by visiting their website at www.KeepTheAngels.com or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/KeeptheAngels.

The Council will be discussing the Angels deal again at their Council Meeting on Tuesday, and we have scheduled a Rally to Keep the Angels before the City Council meeting to make it clear that we want to Keep the Angels in Anaheim. 

The Angels have been a valuable partner in Anaheim for over 40 years. They have supported billions of dollars of commerce in Anaheim over the years, and perhaps even more importantly, brought joy and a sense of community to our city for all these years. They have also supported many, many charities in Anaheim in their time here. 

Please join us and others from across our community at our Rally to Keep the Angels in Anaheim on Tuesday, at 4:30 PM at City Hall!

There is quite a bit of misinformation being disseminated by the usual suspects – and it is disappointing that Mayor Tait is de facto undermining the city negotiators. I would respectfully suggest that those who claim “the Angels aren’t going anywhere” don’t know what they are talking about, and they are equally ill-informed when they characterize the potential leasing of the adjoining city-owned property to Arte Moreno as a “give-away.”

Liking the “Keep the Angels” Facebook page and taking Voice of OC coverage and the clams of Cynthia Ward and her crew with a huge grain of salt are the beginnings of wisdom on this issue.

No comments

  1. Alright, Matt. I’ll bite. Where is Arte taking the Halos?

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Hold on, Ryan. I didn’t say Moreno has some specific destination in mind. My point is he isn’t trapped in Anaheim as critics are claiming. For example, he could serve his termination notice and negotiate a short term lease on Angel Stadium while he builds a new stadium elsewhere. I don’t think he would have any trouble finding another LA media market city to welcome a professional baseball team.

      He lease another venue while he builds a new stadium. The Dodgers played at the Coliseum for several years when they move to LA from Brooklyn. The Angels played at Dodger Stadium for four or five seasons.

      My point is he has options, and that Anaheim doesn’t have Moreno over a barrel as critics claim.

      I think it would be more reasonable to wait for an actual agreement to be negotiated before the gadfly brigade goes to Defcon 4.

      • Yeah, that’s fair, Matt.

        Anaheim also has options. I object to the lack of baseball in Anaheim being portrayed as some bad parody of Chicken Little.

        While Arte certainly has options, I’d love to see what demands the city rejected before approving the MoU. So far as I can tell, the city agreed to everything under the sun and gave him three more years to think about where he’d like to move.

        Long argument cut short, the provisions agreed to negotiate in the MoU aren’t exactly crystal clear. The council had no business approving a document that can so easily be taken out of the context they have in mind after a holiday weekend with barely any public input.

        We’d be better off today if the MoU was sold to the public it serves rather than shoved down their throats. The shouting match that’ll happen today is a product of the council’s hubris and could have been easily avoided.

        • Matthew Cunningham

          Ryan, I think it would be very premature for the city to mount some huge public outreach campaign for a negotiation framework; not a deal, not an agreement, not a contract but a framework. Itmohe MOU is the city and the Angels saying “Wr both understand these as the parameters that will guide our negotiations.”

          The Chicken Little-ism has come from the Take Back Anaheim/OJB/lefty crowd, who are screaming “giveaway” without any actual agreement in front of them.

          • Lack of information breeds discontent.

            I think this smells like a give away, and I’m not a lefty.

            Approve this any other week and with more public notice? Answer some questions from the public? Would have gone a long way towards building trust.

        • Also, neither you or I know what – if any – demands were rejected by the city; I don’t think that kind of speculating really gets us anywhere.

          • Well, that depends. Part of the perception of a problem is the (mis)understanding of the premises supporting the terms in the mou. If you’re looking for evidence that this is not, in fact, a giveaway, where do you find it?

        • It was Mayor Tom Tait and only Tait’s decision to agendize this issue tonight. The city has other serious matters to consider but he’s the one who continues to assemble a circus when he loses an issue on the dais. These negotiations will be public and will take time – and clearly staff sought total transparency in bringing an exhaustive framework forward at the beginning to ensure total public awareness – so putting this back on the agenda tonight was an extreme act of arogance and hubris by the Mayor, not the city staff or the city council. You clearly support Tait at all costs so have some intellectual honesty about it.

          • City Employee:

            I’ve never met Tait, I don’t know Tait, I can’t say if I care or do not care for Tait. Where Tait stands on this is completely irrelevant to me.

            Myth (intellectually and honestly) dispelled.

            You don’t get paid to pigeonhole the public you serve. You do get paid to answer their questions when they’re pissed.

            I’m pretty sure the mayor can agendize whatever he likes. I think calling than an “extreme act” ought to give you pause to consider how apolitical a city servant you are vs. what you should be. You clearly don’t like him and are willing to leap to conclusions to aggregate those who don’t agree with you. That isn’t good behavior for a city employee.

            I suppose you and I can disagree on what level of comfort there is in the community regarding this deal. Assuming I’m right and the public is not comfortable with it, it is absolutely appropriate for the mayor or anyone on the council to agendize discussion of an item. Erroring on the side of additional discussion might be annoying to you, but that doesn’t make it an act of hubris.

            • Mayor Tait agendized the item for purposes of beating up staff and the Angels and nothing more. He knows and even finally admited last night that there will be ample opportunity for public input. Last night was a circus for the sake of assembling a circus. I’m an Anaheim resident and employee so I’m going to voice my opinion on city issues and would argue that I have far greater standing than you do. How on Earth am I pigeon holing the public? What is it with people from other cities getting so involved in our politics – I don’t troll Orange or Fullerton and bang on their policies or businesses. Do you, Diamond, Vern Nelson and so many others truly have nothing better to do with your time?

              • Ok, you KNOW the guy who runs this page lives in Orange, right? You might want to save a comment like that for another venue. We’re all here because we have our own stakes, which you may value less than your own– but they’re substantial all the same. I have no idea why Greg, Vern, or even Matt have an interest in Anaheim, but perhaps the issues we’re all discussing are broader in scope than you’d like to admit. I don’t think that anyone you’re casually inferencing as a rabble-rouser is really around to cause trouble.

                You’re pigeonholing your opposition by lumping them into the same political box based on opposing your opinion rather than their natural affinity towards being viewed together. Case in point: “You support Tait at all costs” when I’ve never actually met the man. It causes you to ignore the sentiment behind the objection by focusing on your sentiment related to the association. You won’t ever collaborate with that type of attitude.

                I empathize with your dual role as a resident and an employee. If you choose to post anonymously, I’d suggest posting as “City Resident” rather than “City Employee”. Your role as an employee is to serve; it is not to devalue the opinions of the public behind a veil. If you’re unwilling to post using a real identity to support your status as a city employee, then perhaps you shouldn’t be posting as a city employee at all. You devalue the work of all the other employees at your office who respectfully do their duty every day without mouthing off.

                What should be abundantly clear is that the broader community is not in alignment regarding the terms of the MoU. The likely cause is a lack of understanding with both the terms and the environment supporting the negotiations. While you may be unhappy with public discourse resembling a circus, remember it’s your job as a city employee to provide the public with the information and understanding they require.

                Perhaps the Mayor isn’t making this easy for you and that’s frustrating, but perhaps that doesn’t matter. Perhaps it’s your job to make the best out of a difficult situation and drive towards alignment.

                Perhaps taking the high road would make your job easier.

                • Ryan, get off your high horse for a second. Do you really believe that last night had anything to do with “informing the public?” It was a painfully obvious ploy by Tait to get his crew of bloggers to stir things up. If you want to get really honest about it, then we can talk about why he is doing this and how he wants to position a few fellow nutters to be ready to run for election next year. Other than that please don’t waste space on the internet with the argument that this was some sort of ‘good government’ move on his part.

                  • Yeah, I do believe it had quite a bit to do with informing the public. Do you seriously want to argue that fewer people are aware of the lease negotiations this morning than were aware of them on Sept 4th? That’s certainly my intent in authoring a piece and commenting here. Are you suggesting that I have an ulterior motive?

                    If you have a theory, feel free to spell it out.

                    • I am arguing that Tait has an ulterior motive that has NOTHING to do with informing the public. Last night he brought up the Angels for personal political reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with governing. I do not know if you are a willing patsy in this effort or have been legitimately duped by it. Either way I’m asking you to knock it off, it’s sad.

    • You talk about misinformation being disseminated by the “usual suspects”, Does that include you? Almost all of your points are incorrect:
      1) The Angels lease is not up in the next few years, it expires in 2029.
      2) The extention under discussion does not keep the Angels here for another 50 years, the Angels can “opt out” in 2036!
      3) The Angels are already required to maintain the stadium ( read paragraph 10(a) of the lease), so they are not saving the taxpayers $150 million!
      4) If you call “partnering”, Anaheim gets $1 per year and Moreno gets $millions per year, then I want to be your business partner!

      • Matthew Cunningham

        Larry: I was referring to when the Angels can opt-out of the current lease agreement, which is indeed in a couple of years. So he already has plenty of time to find a new location to play temporarily while building a new stadium. I think other SoCal cities that we’re trying to lure an NFL team would like to have an MLB team.

        As for your claim re the current lease obligating the Angels re maintenance: I’d have to look at that provision – but if the Angels opt-out in a couple of years, kind of a moot point.

        • You responded to 1 of my 4 points… Your quote, “as you know, the Angels lease is up in the next few years” is not accurate. The lease is not up. Moreno has never even said he intends to leave or exercise his option to cancel the lease. My “claim” regarding the current lease is not my “claim”. It’s the language in the lease. You should read it…I did! Do you not have any answer for my other points. The MOU terms do not keep the Angels here for another 50 years and the MOU terms do not in any way make Anaheim a “partner” with future development.

          • Matthew Cunningham

            Sorry, Larry. I suppose I should have canceled my dentist appointment to respond to you. I answered points 1 and 3. As for point 2: a new contract would give the Angels an opt-out before the 50 years is over — just like the current lease allows them to opt-out before the 2029 date. So what?

            As for point 4: where was your concern about this valuable land prior to the MOU? Now there’s a billionaire willing to risk his capital to develop the site, which will create economic growth, and you’re complaining? I’m all ears if the carpers and complainers have some brilliant economic development alternative in their pockets, that they’ve been keeping to themselves all these years!

  2. wow, my earlier comment was removed. I want to know if Arte is going to remove the word ” Anaheim” from the team name. If that’s the case then I don’t care if they leave. Arte obviously cares more about money than the city of Anaheim and the Angels fans. I would hate to see them go but I’m sick of Arte, his decisions are affecting the team and fans morale in a very negative manner.

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Alex: Not sure about any earlier comment, because I didn’t remove anything by you. Must have been a glitch. In any case, my apologies.

      One point of the negotiating framework was for the Angels to have sole control of the team name. In reality, they’ve already dropped Anaheim from the team name, and I don’t see any real difference if “of Anaheim” is ultimately dropped from the name. I supported the city’s lawsuit over the name change, but that’s a battle that has been fought and lost, in my opinion.

    • I too wish for Anaheim to be included in the team name, however, I realize including Los Angeles brings more fan base and generates more income to maintain a competitive club with quality players. Also, I now see the issue more clearly with the reality that Disneyland is not called Anaheim Disneyland. Everyone already associates the Angels and Disneyland with Anaheim.

      • Then why did he add LA to the team name? why not just call them the Angels or the OC Angels? I don’t think adding LA to an OC team shows much appreciation for the fan base out here in Orange County. The Dodgers have a very loyal fan base, much stronger now that they’re in the playoffs, I can’t see the fan base dropping their loyalty to a winning team and coming to a team where the owner only cares about lining his pockets and disregarding the team and their fans.

      • Lifetime Anaheim Resident

        Thank you Mr. Reade for standing up to gang members – as well as for the positive support for the Angels! I wish more people had your courage.

      • Funny that the Ducks haven’t added Los Angeles to their name. Then go back to California Angels.

    • I agree Alex. Where exactly could Arte go in LA that the Dodgers wouldn’t fight and the MLB would approve? Also, a big reason cited for the downfall of the Rams/Raiders was that it split the fan base. If he wants an LA tram so badly….go get it.
      He has a strong fan base here. How many other MLB teams include the name of another city in their name? I can’t think of any team. Think the giants would change to the Oakland giants of SF?

      • Sick of politics – why are you politicizing the Angels with the Mayor? The city lost the name game in the courts. Let’s go door to door in Anaheim and ask residents if they prefer the name or the team. I’m betting the residents stand by the team!

        • I don’t stand with the Mayor and this is entirely my own stream of thought. We lost the name change because our contract didn’t adequately cover that issue. Now we have the power to. Most residents I have spoken to care very deeply about the name. I do not want the team to leave, but the name change pissed off a lot of residents and fans. Arte should show loyalty to the city that houses and supports his team. If he can’t show loyalty to us, he shouldn’t expect it in return.
          Certainly you’re entitled to your opinion and I understand your thought process. I just don’t agree.

  3. Giving away free t-shirts to draw a crowd to City Hall is ALWAYS laughable!

  4. [comment deleted due to its shockingly low intelligence for an editor of a (sort of) newspaper.]

  5. I think if I were to attend this rally I would carry a banner asking him to leave. Arte is acting like a spoiled child. as much as I would hate to see the team leave, it’s more painful to watch awesome players blow the season. I think Arte it’s actually trying to disappoint the OC fans to the point where we could care less of he decides to leave. hey Arte your plan is working, I for one could care less if the team stays or goes. Go line your pockets with another city’s money, I’m done supporting YOUR team.

  6. The Angels have been in Anaheim since 1966 – there are OUR team regardless of the name. The city fought valiantly and lost that battle and the courts have ruled. The team is privately owned whether we like it or not – as much as I would prefer the team to be named after our city, I would much rather have them play here than leave. Many MLB teams are not named after the cities where they play. Arte Moreno is the third owner – they have been named the LA Angels originally, then the California Angels for the bulk of their time in Anaheim and now the LA Angels of Anaheim. Are we really going to chase the team out of town over the name? This is a ridiculous battle if that’s the case and shortsighted for the hundreds of thousands of fans in Anaheim and OC who would no longer have a hometown team.

    • It’s not just about the name change (however that’s what bothers me the most since the rest of the financial and contract negotiations are so confusing to me right now) I would absolutely have supported the name change back to California Angels but he is specifically changing it to LA and has dropped Anaheim altogether. If he wants to cater to the LA crowd and disregard the OC fan base then job well done. I’m sure he won’t be missing my money or fan support since according to his marketing strategy there will be a couple more Angeleno’s to take my place. Since there are two LA teams now then maybe I’ll become a Dodger fan, it’s a longer drive and a rowdy crowd but at least I know their owners are thinking about the fans and have a lot of pride for the city and county hosting their team. They seem more appreciative of their fans and less of having an entitlement ego.

      • Alex – you may feel that way and thanks for your constant support of the APD – but I’m betting most Anaheim residents don’t agree and are not willing to lose their team to LA. Unfortunately, OC does not have its own media market and is adjacent to the largest media market in the nation and the world’s film industry so we are not likely to ever get our own multi media market. Teams don’t survive on hot dogs and ticket sales, they need ad revenue to afford to operate. The LA in the team’s name was a business decision not a personal attack on the city where they play.

        • I realize teams don’t survive on food and ticket sales alone. However, having spent a small fortune myself by attending countless games, purchasing all kinds of memorabilia, attending and volunteering personal time at fundraising events (and NOT getting paid) I do take his decision personally. As a loyal fan, I was very proud to wear the Angel’s gear and short of being a face painter, I fully defended and supported the team even when they weren’t doing so great. Unfortunately, that has all changed in recent months. I have very little respect for a man who doesn’t appreciate or listen to the fan base here in Orange County. NO ONE wanted the name changed and he didn’t care. Now he’s fully dropped any name connection to Orange County. He can move and things shouldn’t change too much for the loyal fans. We still have the surrounding bars like Hooters, JT Schmidts, OC Sports Bar and Grill etc.. where loyal fans can support the team without lining an ungrateful, arrogant, wealthy mans pockets. I’d rather give my money to the surrounding businesses than continue to line Arte’s pockets.
          My financial support is a drop in the bucket of his wealth, he won’t miss one less fan at his stadium.

          Side note-At least the APD can focus their resources on other parts of Anaheim if the Angels were to move.

  7. Anyone who thinks the Angels can’t go back to Dodger Stadium where they started in the 60s, which has just been upgraded to one of the nicest stadiums in the country, is hugely underestimating the risks. And anyone who thinks that many cities across LA County would not give their right arms, free land and huge subsidies to work with Mr. Moreno to build a new stadium and have the team in their town for the next 50 years is just delusional. Mayor Tait and the people commenting here either want to push the team out of town for other reasons or just couldn’t care less about a MLB team in Anaheim/OC. The City is merely trying to begin a negotiation with a team – NOTHING has been given to Mr. Moreno. All of this theatre is an attempt to undermine the negotiations and nothing more.

    • The same LA that is still facing budget shortfalls?

      • Yeah – the same LA that just got a privately funded state of the art modern baseball stadium – yep, that one!

        • Privately funded being the key term. If Arte wants to throw his money away building a new stadium in LA then so be it. Negotiations should yield a deal that is equally fair to the team and the city… That should include dropping LA.

    • A reminder: The Los Angeles Dodgers own Dodger stadium. I think it’s a pretty big leap to assume they’ll allow their facility to host a rival team that overtly desires to tap their revenue stream.

      If you really think the Halos are going there, I have a bridge or two you might be interested in.

  8. Keep the Angels in Anaheim and kick Tait out of town!

  9. Baseball is not that popular with young people. In fact on the West side of Anaheim soccer is more popular. Anaheim is the 55 largest city in the US but its too closed to LA which is why it never got much attention. So, it doesn’t matter if the team leaves. Also, Anaheim has in the past 10 years have slowed to moderate growth, its aging and its not a new city like Irvine which can construct a lot more houses. Anaheim is facing what Santa Ana faces even with a lot of youth they are built out cities and about a quarter of even the kids of the Immigrants will leave to other parts of OC or the Inland Empire.for housing when they grow up..

  10. Cynthia – you do not speak for most Anaheim residents – Angels baseball is incredibly popular with kids, families and residents in our city and citywide. If you think there would not be a huge public outcry if they let, you are sadly mistaken. I hope the city doesn’t roll over on the deal terms but I want my team to stay in Anaheim! I also wish the Mayor would allow the process to unfold some more before he attacks his staff and the team.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*