Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Lawsuit Likely Against Stadium Negotiations


Recommended Posts

https://voiceofoc.org/2020/01/lawsuit-likely-against-anaheim-over-secretive-stadium-negotiations/

Lawsuit Likely Against Anaheim Over Secretive Stadium Negotiations

Anaheim City Council members and top city officials may soon have to defend the Angel Stadium sale in court if the City Council doesn’t redo the process in public, according to a demand letter from a renowned statewide open government attorney, who has been retained by a group of Anaheim residents. 

“The Council’s approval of this Agreement was a rubber stamp of the terms that had been improperly discussed, negotiated, and agreed upon outside of public view, in violation of the Brown Act (state transparency law),” reads the Jan. 19 letter filed by attorney Kelly Aviles.

Aviles letter alleges council members violated the state’s transparency law because the 1953 Ralph M. Brown Act limits private discussion of any sale of public property to “price and terms of payment” for the sale of the land...

Edited by Ace-Of-Diamonds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eligrba4ever said:

Anaheim's stadium deal faces a lawsuit? Shocking. NOT. This is America. Everybody gets sued sometime, especially public entities with deep-ish pockets.

It would have helped if you had done even a cursory review of the story.  This isn't about suing deep pockets.  It is about transparency of a process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, greginpsca said:

City negotiations are conducted in private session, not in public, ever. The law does state that the city is required to announce whether any action was taken during  the private session.

Per the article

Aviles letter alleges councilmembers violated the state’s transparency law because the 1953 Ralph M. Brown Act limits private discussion of any sale of public property to “price and terms of payment” for the sale of the land. 

Everything else about the proposed $325 million sale of the stadium and the 153-acres of land around it as well as any general agreements about how to develop the area around it, the next six months of negotiations or the Angels future in Anaheim had to be discussed in public session to be legal under state law, Aviles argues.

In her letter, Aviles’ specifically called out the Angels’ 30-year commitment to stay in the city and the move to sell the stadium as items that should have been publicly discussed. 

“The pros and cons of the decision to sell vs. lease public property and the ultimate decision to sell the property must be agendized as an open session item for discussion. Many of the terms included in the Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Fact Sheet, released prior to the December 20 special meeting, would not be permitted to be discussed in closed session either,” states the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys wanted to (and did) spend the last 15 years bitching about how crappy the city of Anaheim is, as well as the mayor, the city council, the citizens.  Fine.  Arte Moreno, the owner of the Los Angeles Angels, was 'stuck'.

Well guess what, as of this year and last, Arte Moreno was a free man.  Could be out of the lease of Anaheim, and take his Los Angeles Angels anywhere he damn pleased.  And guess where the genius businessman decided to plant his stake?  Right there in good ol' Anaheim, with the crappy mayor, crappy council, and crappy citizens.  I assume the genius businessman did a cost benefit analysis of every locale he could have taken the Angels, and he still ended up in Anaheim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

You guys wanted to (and did) spend the last 15 years bitching about how crappy the city of Anaheim is, as well as the mayor, the city council, the citizens.  Fine.  Arte Moreno, the owner of the Los Angeles Angels, was 'stuck'.

Well guess what, as of this year and last, Arte Moreno was a free man.  Could be out of the lease of Anaheim, and take his Los Angeles Angels anywhere he damn pleased.  And guess where the genius businessman decided to plant his stake?  Right there in good ol' Anaheim, with the crappy mayor, crappy council, and crappy citizens.  I assume the genius businessman did a cost benefit analysis of every locale he could have taken the Angels, and he still ended up in Anaheim.

Message board opinions about the city of Anaheim have absolutely nothing to do with how Arte views it. 

Nice try, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...