Angels flip off Snow White

But unlikely to get public money elsewhere in Southland.

The Angeles American League baseball team yesterday (September 26) broke off negotiations with the City of Anaheim over a deal for a renovated stadium. Negotiations had been going on for a year. The team would put $150 million of their own money into an overhaul of the Anaheim ballpark, but would get the parking lots for a lease of $1 a year. That's prime land, so Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait proposed splitting the profits from redevelopment of the land between the team and the city.

So now the indignant team is talking with Tustin. Says the Los Angeles Times, "It is unlikely that Tustin — or any other city in Southern California — would use taxpayer money to build a stadium for the Angels." (That is encouraging for realists who hope San Diego taxpayers won't get stuck paying for a Chargers stadium.)

Angeles owner Arte Moreno commented, "We can afford to build a new stadium."

"Then just fucking do it," comments Barry Petchesky, columnist for the sports blog Deadspin.

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader


Perhaps he will. Moreno has a higher net worth than the Spanos family, and with the property available in both Tustin and Irvine, he might just do it himself. Of course, we will see if Moreno can somehow get Tustin or Irvine to "sweeten the pot" a bit.

aardvark: If Moreno pays for a stadium himself, he will be an outcast among MLB owners. In fact, he will be reviled. Best, Don Bauder

I don't know that MOreno can build one himself. Forbes lists his worth at $1.3 billion and I think the Angels are about $800 million of that.

He could leverage some of the future TV revenue against the building of the ballpark--that was one of the things he had mentioned in another article. The Angels are currently just a couple of years into a 20 year/$3 billion local TV contract with Fox Sports at an average of $150 million/year.

aardvark: Yes, both football and baseball teams can afford to build stadiums, rather than raping taxpayers to do so, by leveraging future TV revenue. Best, Don Bauder

danfogel: If he is worth $1.3 billion he can get a lot of leverage. And he can round up other investors. Best, Don Bauder

That's a great new Nike tag line, "Just freaking do it.".

MichaelValentine: Except that isn't what Petchesky said. Best, Don Bauder

13 years on The Church of Nazarene in MId-City executive board has tamed an old Marine's salty tounge.

MichaelValentine: Congratulations for toning down what one of those damned (literally) journalists said. Best, Don Bauder

The proposed grab of the parking lot land sounds very familiar, the Chargers proposed a similar scheme not long ago, I expect them to try it again. Note the claim to contribute to the stadium construction, when actually they're only low balling the real estate price. Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait wins praise very few San Diego politicians earn. Seems like he's not completely in the pocket of the sports billionaires. Be careful Mayor!

The Chargers can propose to "grab" whatever land they want, but the city can't give them the land--but they can buy it (after the city voters allow the city to sell it per the city charter). Of course, if a new stadium were such a profitable venture, the Chargers would have purchased the 60 acres they wanted over 10 years ago and built their own stadium and ancillary development with all the private money they claimed to have waiting in the wings.

aardvark: Correct. If stadiums were profitable, NFL owners -- 18 of 32 of whom are billionaires -- would long ago have built their own stadiums. Best, Don Bauder

Psycholizard: Even Bob Filner, who set out to oppose the corporate welfare crowd, began to cave on both the convention center and the Chargers after he realized his enemies were serious about ousting him. Best, Don Bauder

I'm not opposed to proposals for grand projects in principle, I think they should be paid for, and not be part of some dishonest scheme to loot the City's real estate portfolio. They should be needed, or a true addition to our City, and the needed projects should come first. We need streets, water and sewers. We can afford to fix these and consider other improvements, when this town will consider new taxes. We don't need, personally I don't even want, a Crack Central Con-Stadium. Our present Stadium is a perfectly sited architectural masterpiece, in all the blather, no one can find a serious flaw.

Psycholizard: But some posters on this blog say Qualcomm is a wreck. Others disagree. I say, "So what?" Other things are more important. Best, Don Bauder

Don: It is a wreck--but it is part of the city's infrastructure backlog. Unfortunately, I fear that Qualcomm Stadium is quietly moving up the list of infrastructure projects. And the streets, water distribution and other city infrastructure will continue to crumble. As much as I would love the city to fix-up the Q, it just isn't a priority.

aardvark: Agreed 100%. If Qualcomm needs fixing -- and I don't know that it does -- it is still a very low priority. Best, Don Bauder

Don: I have a friend who works the corporate boxes at Qualcomm, and she tells me that those boxes are being redone from top to bottom. Any idea how we find out who is footing the bill for this?

aardvark: I can't imagine that the wealthy using those boxes are picking up the tab. That isn't how things work in San Diego. Best, Don Bauder

Log in to comment

Skip Ad