Anaheim Observer Civic affairs in OC's largest city.
The city’s proposed sale of Angel Stadium and the surrounding 153 acres to the Angels for $325 million has landed like a flash bang grenade among the usual circle of “experts,” gadflies and critics of Mayor Harry Sidhu and the city council majority – leaving them scrambling for arguments to oppose the deal.
They had convinced themselves that any agreement secured by Sidhu and the negotiating team would be a bad one that put Anaheim taxpayers on the hook for building a new stadium or renovating the existing one. The proposed agreement is the last thing they expected. They had been agreeing with each other for so long it never crossed their minds that Sidhu and the negotiating team would secure agreement to sell the stadium site for fair market value while keeping the team in town for decades and generating increased tax revenues and substantive community benefits.
The critics are now claiming $325 million is too low – that the “actual price” for the stadium site is $525 million for the stadium site.
This is a lie.
What they omit is that is the appraised value without a baseball team — just 153 acres of high-density housing without the parks, affordable housing and other community benefits the city has pledge to secure while negotiating the development agreement in early 2020.
The Mayor and council majority campaigned on keeping the Angels in Anaheim. There’s no doubt the majority of Anaheim residents want to keep the Angels in Anaheim.
The only way the city gets $525 million for the stadium site is by getting rid to the Angels. But don’t expect critics of this deal to admit that. They are too dishonest and frankly, too afraid of giving credit to Sidhu and the negotiating team for negotiating in good faith with the Angels to secure a deal that is good for Anaheim’s taxpayers and economy.
And so, they resort to half-truths.
Which alternative do Anaheim residents prefer:
A) A deal to sell the stadium site for $325 million that keeps the Angels in Anaheim until at least 2050, results in a new or renovated stadium at no cost to taxpayers, as well as more park space, more housing (including affordable), development that generates jobs and millions in additional annual tax revenues, and other community benefits?
or
B) Selling it for $525 million by booting the Angels out of Anaheim and losing the guarantee of all of the above benefits?
It’s a safe bet Councilman Moreno and the critics know the answer.
For Councilman Jose F. Moreno and his cadre, the Angels negotiations are all about politics. Moreno wants to take control of the City Council in the 2020 election and has put together a slate of candidates. He wants to run against “taxpayer giveaways” and “corporate subsidies” and was counting in the Angels deal include both. Instead, Sidhu brings back an agreement that brings in huge new revenues, more affordable, housing, parks and jobs . They land is being sold at fair market value. And if the Angels want a new stadium, they – and not Anaheim taxpayers – will have to pay for it.
These are all things Councilman Moreno has said, over and over, that he wants. And now he’s got them – except he not only had nothing to do with it, but the credit will redound to the council majority he seeks to oust. No wonder this agreement is giving Councilman Moreno a political ulcer. No wonder he, along with his political allies, are trying to mislead the public with false numbers about the “actual” price of the stadium site.
Expect more misinformation, half-truths and lies from opponents of the agreement the vote in it draws nearer.
he’s an evil guy.
The deal sounds pretty clear to me. The City of Anaheim will no longer own Angel Stadium of Anaheim, so that rules out Anaheim Taxpayers covering the costs of renovating the existing stadium or any costs of demolishing the existing stadium and building a new one. All those costs will be on The Angels Organization which won’t leave them as much for signing good players, particularly good pitching which they really need right now, but will be harder the team to afford. The Angels will probably continue to have a mediocre team for quite a very long time.This all works out very well for the City of Anaheim, however, because now they will have a Major League Stadium in operation until 2050. If The Los Angeles Angels had moved to Long Beach, Anaheim and the Platinum Triangle would have been saddled with a run-down stadium which probably would have never been used again and eventually would have had an appointment with the wrecking ball. This would have left a big hole in the Platinum Triangle and the City of Anaheim as a whole. But now, Anaheim and the Platinum Triangle will continue to prosper, and they will be $325 Million Dollars richer. I can’t say the same for The Angels, but then again, who cares?
They would have just filled the space with those horrendous apartments
Many or all of these anti Capitalist should move to Venezuela and practice their Socialist beliefs. I believe there are no MLB baseball franchises down there to trigger their anxiety.
This article oversimplifies the deal and does not go into detail about the actual deal points in the purchase/sale agreement.
The purchase sale agreement as described is not really a document that sells the land. It merely gives the management company the right (but not obligation) to purchase the property after 6 years by way of several refundable deposits.
The outside closing date requires the city to refund all funds back
to the buyer (before 2025) if buyer determines at their “sole discretion” not to purchase the property. This purchase sale agreement has so many contingencies it is not a purchase sale agreement at all but a short term lease appeasement. There is no requirement for the buyer to purchase the land (but the city is obligated to sell the property to the buyer for almost 6 years), as at their sole discretion they can determine if they would like to purchase it or not by 2025. This purchase sale agreement is not worth the paper its written on. It is essentially a clause in the existing lease to allow the buyer to purchase the property not the obligation to purchase it. The governing document that is the lease will likely continue and this is just an addendum to that lease. The buyer can cancel the agreement and Angels Baseball LP is not obligated to perform per its terms of the lease. On the surface this just extends the “opt out” to 2025 and gives the buyer additional rights to purchase the land or use the land/stadium as leverage to negotiate a better deal for Angels Baseball LP during the closing period (The whole agreement including the clause that requires the Angels to stay in Anaheim till 2050 is also voided if the buyer “at their sole discretion” decides not to move forward with the purchase prior to 2025.
The city attorney for Anaheim wrote a horrible document that has so much
ambiguity in it that if the buyer/Angels want out they will easily be able to get out of such a poorly written PSA. Nothing is being sold, nothing has been confirmed but now the Angels/buyer have until now till 2025 to negotiate down the price or cancel out of the PSA. The city essentially has no recourse with this document as the land is now tied up by the buyer for 6 years.
Interesting perspective, Barry. Thank you.
At the same time, do you agree with the critics claiming the “actual price” for the site is $525 million? They imply that is the amount the Angels should be paying for it. Or even clowns like David Zenger claiming it is worth $900 million.
Also, I think the details will be ironed out in the development agreement, don’t you think?
@anaheim411 no the price I think is fair for what it is. But tying up the property for 6 years with the buyer having the ability to get out of the deal at any point with fully refundable deposits I think is extremely concerning.
With regards to the price, the development that is allowed will depend on external factors. One such item that has not been discussed is that the state has a mandate for affordable units that are required for any such development. Are these required units exempt from a reduction in price? Further, the city has a zone plan that requires certain open space requirements. Are these also exempted? or will all these municipal/state requirements automatically trigger a reduction in the purchase price?
Bottom line is that right now the buyer has 6 years of leverage to do as they may will with no risk. They can threaten a pull out or even pull out with any hard costs.
Being that the lease is also tied to the stadium purchase with this addendum that further complicates the issue as 2050 is dependent upon the buyer purchasing the property. If that never materializes or if the buyer decides to ask for a reduction in the purchase price the city is forced to accept these concessions.
This deal is not a deal at all but the option for the buyer to purchase the property. There are no hard deadlines set till at least 2025.
In what section of the PSA does it say the Angels can withdraw from the agreement and get all their deposits back?
section 3.1
” If Buyer terminates this Agreement prior to the Inspection Deadline as provided herein, the Initial Deposit shall be refundable to Buyer ” The city only gets to keep $200
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties acknowledge that Two Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($200.00) of the Initial Deposit shall be retained by Seller as independent consideration for Seller entering into this Agreement and the rights and privileges extended to Buyer as provided herein. To the extent provisions of this Agreement require return of the Escrow Deposit to Buyer, the Escrow Deposit shall be returned to Buyer net of such independent consideration
Section 5:
The Closing shall be effected through an escrow (the “Escrow”) on the Closing Date; provided, however, if Closing has not occurred prior to the Outside Closing Date, either party not then in default (following notice and opportunity to cure, as provided in Section 12) may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party and to Escrow Holder, and thereupon the Escrow Deposit shall be returned to Buyer by Escrow Holder, and to the extent previously released to Seller, by Seller, and the parties shall have no further obligations under this Agreement except for those provisions (including this provision) that expressly survive termination of this Agreemen
So the Angels probably won’t build a new stadium in Anaheim if they can pull out of the deal in 6 years, and/or they can just dilly dally for six years and see if they can get a lower price? Is that the deal I’m reading?
“Bottom line is that right now the buyer has 6 years of leverage to do as they may will with no risk. They can threaten a pull out or even pull out with any hard costs.”
The buyer is not obligated to purchase the property till 2025. All their deposits are refundable.
Further if the buyer does not purchase the property the agreement forthe angels to stay till 2050 is null and void.
This purchase to sale agreement does not give clarity to anything because the buyer is not obligated to purchase the property at 325 million. They merely have the option to and also have to option to re-negotiate the price of the property
David Zenger, Vern Nelson, Greg Diamond, Mike Robbins, Jeanie Robbins, Donna Ascevedo and the whole cadre, are unemployed, middle aged losers.
Why should anyone listen to a water color artist, a failed musician, a kitchen table attorney , a cigar peddler, a loud mouth in bad clothes and a gang Mom?
This cadre of LOSERS can barely function as humans yet, they want you to believe they know about Multi-Million dollar real estate deals. Please. Vern can’t drive, can’t step on DL property, Fourth District candidate Jeanie Robbins publicly said that the “smartest person I’ve ever known” is a 22 year old college kid, who happens to be her son.
Did you see that latimes article where Jose Moreno said he was a fan of the Dodgers. Probably the reason why he wants the Angels to leave.