OC Register: Is potential Angel Stadium deal fair for both sides, or ‘laughable’? The debate is on

[AngelsWin.com]

When Anaheim released details of a proposed Angel Stadium deal on Wednesday, Dec. 4, the praise and criticism began almost immediately.

The topic of debate is a potential agreement through which the city would sell the 153-acre Angel Stadium property, stadium included, for $325 million; the buyer is a business entity in which team owner Arte Moreno is a partner. Moreno would also commit his team to play baseball in Anaheim until at least 2050, and the city has requested other benefits that are being hammered out.

The deal, which still needs the Anaheim City Council’s approval, would essentially put a ring on it after months of will-they-or-won’t-they drama, as the two sides prepared to negotiate for the 53-year-old stadium.

Opinions diverge as to whether the proposal is good for everyone involved, but those who want to share theirs will have to speak up soon, with the council expected to vote on the land sale portion of the deal Dec. 20.

So how are people evaluating a possible deal that’s worth millions to Anaheim taxpayers and hard to put a price on for Angels baseball fans?

‘A home run’

Anaheim Council members Lucille Kring and Trevor O’Neil said they think the proposal is fair and, importantly, gets the city out of the stadium business.

When you’re the landlord, “You’re the one who fixes the toilets and you’re the one that does everything, and when it’s vacant you’re the one that takes the loss,” Kring said.

Anaheim officials have said the stadium needs an estimated $150 million in repairs and upgrades, and the current lease requires the city to pay six figures annually for maintenance. If the deal goes through, Kring said, “The residents, the taxpayers do not pay one single dime.”

Besides the lump sum from the land sale, the city will get ongoing revenue from property and sales taxes as the land around the stadium is developed with homes, restaurants and shops, and other businesses, O’Neil said – and all that money can help pay for police service, parks and other things residents want and expect.

“Everything that I hear from people in the community is all about keeping baseball in Anaheim, and we’ve accomplished that,” O’Neil said. “It’s a home run as far as I’m concerned.”

Not so fast

But the speed with which the deal was drafted and will be brought up for a binding vote leads Councilman Jose Moreno to conclude it’s being done “in the dark of night under a cloud of secrecy.” (Jose Moreno and Arte Moreno are not related.)

Moreno has waged a months-long and largely unsuccessful campaign to open the negotiation process more to the public: the council majority declined to release the appraisal before a potential agreement was reached, and on Tuesday, Dec. 3, it wouldn’t agree to hold a public workshop on the draft deal at its regular Dec. 17 meeting, three days before the first key vote. (Moreno said he’ll hold his own community meeting.)

Paul Kott, who owns a local real estate business, acknowledged he doesn’t know all the details but questioned the appraised land value – which ranges from $225 million to $475 million – and the price Anaheim seems willing to accept. The city deal would work out to $2.1 million an acre, but Kott said properties in or near the Platinum Triangle area where the stadium sits have gone for more than twice that.

“I would say that those values (in the appraisal) are way too low based on what properties in that area are selling for recently,” he said.

Add in that the final price tag on the prime developable acreage will likely be reduced to compensate the buyer for land-using benefits the city is requesting – extra park space and affordable homes – and Moreno considers the $325 million offer “laughable.”

How does it compare?

It’s unusual but not unique for Major League Baseball teams (or their wealthy owners) to own their own parks, said ballparkdigest.com publisher Kevin Reichard, noting that about eight teams – including the Dodgers – are their own landlord.

Anaheim’s proposed deal seems in line with how other cities have helped spur money-making development around their stadiums, he said, and it avoids often-criticized taxpayer subsidies.

“This is definitely a big-picture deal for both Anaheim and the Angels,” Reichard said. “By and large, these sports entertainment districts have proven to be pretty successful.”

From a taxpayer’s perspective, the deal could certainly be worse, said Neil deMause, coauthor of “Field of Schemes,” a book about public financing of sports venues. He noted a 2013 draft agreement that might have let Arte Moreno develop the parking lot land under a long-term lease for $1 a year; city officials have said it was simply a discussion starter.

But the new proposal’s unknowns – such as how much the city’s asks for the community will cost – make it hard to evaluate, deMause said. “I’m concerned that whenever you get something done in a rush like this, it’s a recipe for a bad deal.”

Related links

• Angels agree to stay in Anaheim through 2050, stadium to be sold for $325 million
• Angel Stadium talks: What constitutes a ‘fair’ lease deal for Anaheim?
• Stadium maintenance, debt eat into Anaheim’s revenue from hosting Angels baseball
• After second meeting with Angels over stadium lease, mayor says ‘it’s clear’ they share same goals

For the Angels, the proposed stadium sale would certainly help achieve a key objective, which team spokeswoman Marie Garvey described as “being able to control our destiny and create a great fan experience.”

And about those fans? Much of the social media reaction expressed relief or satisfaction that the Angels’ future seems settled – before posters turned to questions of the team name or how to improve its record.

“If I’m a fan, I’m just tickled pink that the two scenarios right now are the team staying in a renovated ballpark or the team playing in a new ballpark” on the same site, Reichard said. (Angels officials said they’re looking at all options for the stadium.)

But he cautioned fans not to get too excited yet – big real estate and development projects often take longer than expected.

View the full article