As the Angel Stadium deal
died and the mayor of Anaheim resigned amid an FBI investigation into public
corruption, the city of Anaheim has worked to isolate itself from the
allegations leveled against the now-former mayor.
On Monday, an Orange
County grand jury nonetheless blasted the Anaheim City Council — and not just
now-disgraced former Mayor Harry Sidhu — for rushing to approve a stadium deal
without proper transparency.
“The City Council
majority’s inappropriate handling of the stadium property transactions betrayed
its constituents,” the grand jury said in its report.
Mike Lyster, the city
spokesman, declined to respond to that sentence. In a statement, Lyster said:
“We appreciate the grand jury’s review. With recent events and new information
brought to light, those issues now are being thoroughly discussed as part of a
new, extensive public process for our city.”
Jose Moreno, the most
prominent member of the council minority, said the grand jury report reinforced
the point that Sidhu had just one of seven votes on the council.
The council majority,
Moreno said, rushed to approve actions in support of corporate interests in
Anaheim, including but not limited to the stadium deal.
“That’s just the pinnacle
of their hubris,” Moreno said.
“At the end of the day,
the city council — in all of these issues that the special interests that were
working in unison with one another — needed four votes. They kept getting not
just four but five votes, on key issues that we now know are a function of the
interest of this self-proclaimed cabal. That is what I hope people keep their
eye on.”
In an affidavit that was
publicly disclosed May 16, FBI special agent Brian Adkins alleged that Sidhu
had shared confidential negotiating information with the Angels — at a time
when the city was negotiating against the team — in the hope the team would
provide a million-dollar contribution to his reelection campaign. Sidhu’s
attorney has denied those claims.
Adkins also alleged that
Sidhu had “attempted to obstruct” the grand jury inquiry into the stadium deal.
Even as city officials
denounced Sidhu’s alleged behavior, claimed no knowledge of it, and killed the
suddenly politically toxic deal, they stood behind the sale and the process
behind it.
On the day the affidavit
against Sidhu was disclosed, City Manager Jim Vanderpool said in a statement:
“Throughout this process, Anaheim staff and the City Council have worked in
good faith on a proposal that offered benefits for our community.”
Trevor O’Neil, now the
mayor pro tem, said the council had approved the deal in the best interest of
the city.
“That was the case for
myself and a majority of my council colleagues on the stadium plan, which we
evaluated and supported on its merits,” O’Neil wrote in an op-ed in the Orange
County Register.
After the grand jury
released its report, O’Neil sounded a similar note.
“We welcome this report
but don’t agree with everything in it,” he said in a statement.
“We evaluated the stadium
proposal on its merits and in the best interest of those we serve. What we’ve
learned put us in a different place, where the best thing we could do is cancel
the deal, which we did swiftly.”
The grand jury said it had
initiated its probe before learning of the FBI investigation. The grand jury’s
most prominent finding directly contradicted claims that the city and its
council majority had worked in the best interest of the city and its residents:
“The city of Anaheim demonstrated persistent lack of transparency and rushed
decision-making in its handling of the stadium property transactions,
exacerbating distrust by the public, state and local government officials, and
even some members of its own City Council.”
The grand jury also cited
the city for failure to share negotiating documents that “resulted in
uninformed decision-making by the City Council,” for limiting “creative
affordable housing strategies” as part of the sale, and for “stifling public
discussion” because the council majority repeatedly blocked the council
minority from even bringing up issues surrounding the deal, let alone debating
them.
Under the deal, as
approved by the council in 2019, the city would have received $150 million in
cash for the 150-acre property from a company controlled by Angels owner Arte
Moreno, who is not related to the councilman.
The city would have
provided Arte Moreno’s company with $170 million in development credits to
include parkland and affordable housing within a project that would have
surrounded the stadium with homes, shops, restaurants, offices and hotels.
The grand jury said it “does
not see the benefit” of such “financial community benefits” and recommended the
council not offer them in any future stadium sale.
The grand jury also
recommended the city ensure a minimum 30-day review period for any such land
sale. The council majority had refused to support councilman Moreno’s call for
a 30-day review period for the Angel Stadium sale.
To ensure a more fully
informed public, the grand jury said any future negotiating committee should
include more than one council member. The council majority voted for Sidhu to
be the council’s lone representative in negotiations with the Angels, and the
grand jury said the council minority had “found it very challenging to obtain
expected detailed and factual negotiating updates.”
The grand jury excoriated
Sidhu for this comment at one council meeting: “The City Council decides what
happens in the city and not the voters.”
The grand jury response:
“Mayor Sidhu’s comment is not only offensive to his constituents, but it also
contradicts the very intent of the Brown Act.”
The Brown Act essentially
requires public business to be done in public. A citizens’ group sued the city
for allegedly violating the Brown Act during stadium sale negotiations. The
city prevailed.
In his affidavit, Adkins
wrote that Sidhu’s actions “may have affected the ruling” because a cooperating
witness said Sidhu gave him information about a land appraisal so he could
share that information with the Angels. Because that information came from a
closed session of the city council, Adkins wrote, “Sidhu’s actions may have
violated the Brown Act.”
Los Angeles Times
Bill Shaikin
June 27, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment