Supporters of Anaheim’s sale of Angel stadium received two pieces of good news in the last couple of months, as a Superior Court judge and the state removed the remaining hurdles to the sale. We’re disappointed with the result, believing the terms of the deal – and the secretive nature of the negotiations – are a disservice to taxpayers.
In March, Orange County Superior Court Judge David Hoffer rejected a lawsuit that tried to force the city to redo its negotiations – based on allegations that the city violated the state’s open-meetings law, known as the Brown Act. Nevertheless, Hoffer ruled that, “the discussions and decision surrounding the sale of the stadium … were fully vetted with the public.”
We agreed with the counsel representing the plaintiffs, who argued that, “allowing public participation only after the deal was finalized is not what the Brown Act intended and does not serve the public’s ability to affect the process.” But the court has ruled and it’s time to move on.
Then in April, city and state officials announced an agreement settling allegations by state housing officials that the deal violated the Surplus Land Act. That law requires cities that sell public land to offer it first to affordable-housing developers. City officials claimed that the law didn’t apply to the stadium-area property.
Related Articles
Newsom opens up to keeping nuclear power
Newsom gets it right on desalination
Desal report from state Coastal Commission is nonsensical
Why is Rob Bonta suing the Postal Service?
Californians need water and electricity, not a train: Letters
Per the settlement, the city does not admit wrongdoing and the state does not rescind its findings. Anaheim will spend $96 million – 30 percent of the deal’s value – on affordable housing, the Register reported. Both sides touted the agreement as a victory.
Given how public agencies spend affordable-housing dollars – in some cases, spending $700,00 per unit – we’re skeptical that the funds will alleviate the local housing crisis. We would have preferred that the city sold the property on the open market in a transparent process – and used the proceeds to provide better city services.
But that’s water under the bridge. At this point, all we can do is monitor its progress – and hope that other jurisdictions at least learn about the pitfalls of public ownership of major assets.