Study: Angel Stadium Deal Would Create 33,000 Jobs, $20 Million In Annual Tax Funds

The development opportunities under the proposed sale of city-owned Angel Stadium to the team owner Arte Moreno would create tens of thousands of jobs, billions in wages and an extra $20 million in annual tax revenue for the city, according to an economic impact study by the real estate advisory firm RCL Co.

SRB Management Company, a partnership led by Moreno, has offered to buy the stadium and surrounding 150 acres for $325 million – which is more than the assessed value of $300 to $320 million.  That valuation is based on the continuation of a stadium on the property and a minimum 12,500 parking spaces.

SRB has indicated it plans to renovate the existing stadium or build a new one – as well as develop commercial, residential and retail-entertainment uses on the property.

The study concludes that the estimated 15-year period to completely develop the stadium would generate:

  • 18,000 full-time equivalent construction jobs
  • $1.5 billion in wages
  • 12,000 indirect jobs in local economy.
  • $3.5 billion in construction

After being built out, the study projects a robust and positive impact on Anaheim:

  • 15,000 permanent jobs in retail/office/hotel/property management
  • $1 billion in annual wages
  • 8,000 indirect/induced jobs in the local economy
  • $5 billion in assessed value
  • $20 million in annual tax revenue for the city

In addition to the sale of the stadium to the Angels, the team is also committing to staying in Anaheim through at least 2050.  According to the RCL study, the fully-developed stadium site will generate more than $1.2 billion in local tax revenues through 2050 – making it one of the city’s biggest sources of tax money.

Even after taking the accompanying costs of additional municipal services, the city will receive more than $650,000,000 in net tax revenue over 30 years – nearly all of it from TOT, sales and property taxes.

For some context, the city’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 general fund budget is $355 million.

Hypocritical Critics

Councilman Jose F. Moreno and his political allies have frequently criticized of the 1996 stadium agreement, complaining that uneven and paltry revenues are offset by the costs of owning it.

Now, the Angels and the city negotiating team have hammered out an agreement that wipes out those costs and will direct more than a billion dollars in new tx revenues into city coffers over the next three decades – vastly more than is generated under the current lease.

Under this proposed deal, the team buys the stadium property from the city for $325 million. This will open the door to development that will create 33,000 construction and permanent jobs. $3.5 billion is projected to be spent on construction, and $1.5 billion in construction wages and $1 billion annually in annual wages. A site that currently generate little tax revenue will ultimately contribute $20 million annually to the city treasury. Councilman Moreno is always going on about the need for more affordable housing, and this deal will lead to construction of hundreds of units of affordable housing.

If the Angels want to renovate the existing stadium or build a new one, they will have to pay for it themselves.

The proposed agreement is a vast improvement over the status quo that Moreno and his political allies kvetch about – and yet all they do is criticize, complain and insist the city could get a better deal.

Remember, these are the same people who said that Disney would build a $1 billion 4-Diamond hotel without the TOT rebate. How did that prediction pan out?


  1. I was at tonight’s council meeting on another matter. It is curious how a certain faction cling to the belief that the city is getting ripped off with the sales price. One individual spoke to the premise that the property is actually worth about $900 million if Disney were to buy it and build a new park. (This same individual is one of the most anti-Disney people I have ever heard) His opines that Art Moreno will turn around and sell the property to Disney and make a cool $600 million forgetting that the Angels are signing a 30 year contract to play in the city. Where would they play if Moreno sold the property to Disney? The other Moreno (Dr. J) feels that there has not been enough study done on the proposal and feels that more time should be spent in researching all possible financial scenarios before voting on the 20th. Many Jose Moreno disciples still bring up the false $1 a year for 60 plus years fairy tale. This is a great deal for the City. Sell the property. Get out of the stadium business. Collect the taxes and serve the citizens of Anaheim.

    • The price may be ok… my main concern on all this is the sheer amount of time that the management group has to make a decision.

      6 years is a very long time, and in that time frame the stadium and its land will be generating 0 in property taxes. Why can’t the city do an owner carry scenario so that the property can transfer immediately and they can start collecting taxes on day 1? Further, why is the purchase sale agreement written so that the buyer can get all their deposits back up until the closing date? These are two unconventional clauses. Add into this the fact that the final price can be revised downwards for affordable units/open space and this deal seems to have a lot of unknown caveats.

      If this deal was for $325 million on day one, the funds are wired or the city carry’s the note and it closes soon then yes its a decent deal. That is not the deal and not what is on the table. That is what makes it a very strange scenario.

      • Until the deal is completely finalized the City and the Angels will continue to work and abide by the 1996 agreement so they here until the end date of that agreement. Being that both parties now agree that the 1996 agreement kind of sucks I believe all parties will want to finalize sooner than later in order to financially benefit. In the mean time…the city will still have to pay its share of yearly maintenance cost as will the Angels until the Angels completely own the property.

        • Hey Jose. Produce a buyer for more than $350 million. Otherwise shut the hell up.

          And imagine the ire to the councilman who votes against this.

          Move to Stanton

  2. Those revenue estimates are vastly overstated. The area will be a ghost town with retail we are overbuilt now. Look at the gardenwalk? A new stadium build would be great. Barry is right the devil is in the details we are over lawyered with litigation and speedy deals are impossible.

  3. I think your concern is misplaced, or at least overdone. 2025 is an outside closing date, a drop-dead, abandon ship if nothing goes as planned. There’s little reason to believe it will take anywhere near that long for the requisite plans and approvals to be completed and ownership change hands.

    I’ve thought about that section that worries you. My take? It’s a hedge for the Angels in case the council majority flips and Moreno is calling the shots, and using his political power to screw with the Angels development plans – demanding card check, “labor peace agreements,” unreasonable affordable housing demands, etc. It’s an incentive for the city not to overreach.

    • Those are already in the contract. Labor Peace agreements check… Affordable housing demands (reasonable or unreasonable) check. This is merely a shake down to get 6 years of free play time and then reduce the price significantly.

      Read the purchase sale agreement. Even the city manager Zapata says they can walk away at anytime from here to 2025. It is a useless agreement that is one sided. You will never find a purchase to sale agreement that allows the buyer to walk away after 6 years after making a series of deposits, oh and by the way they can change the terms of the lease and the price of the property.

      Please point me to any article in the PSA that shows that this is a firm commitment to purchase the property for 325 million

  4. The PSA doesn’t say anything about affordable housing and labor agreements. Those are among the things that will presumably be worked out during the DDA negotiations. What incentive do the Angels have to walk away from this agreement? You keep insisting it is a useless piece of paper – so why would these two organizations negotiate it and engender the political criticism and controversy for a useless piece of paper? The only plausible scenario under which the Angels would use a nuclear option is if a Moreno-led council majority tried to muscle the Angels into accepting complete unionization and their already stated demands for 40% affordable housing.

Leave a Reply

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