The City of Anaheim will
respond this week to a grand jury report that found the city’s handling of the
$320 million Angel Stadium deal was rushed, lacked transparency, and betrayed
constituents.
A 4–2 vote by the city
council Aug. 23 gave staff the approval it needed to send a letter (pdf) to the
Orange County Grand Jury addressing recommendations made in “The Big A Lack of
Transparency,” a reference to the stadium’s nickname, report released in June.
In Anaheim’s response,
City Manager James Vanderpool pushed back against several findings about
transparency and the alleged violation of state land act regulations.
The multi-year
negotiations to buy the stadium and surrounding land for $320 million were
fraught with controversies and fell apart in May. The Anaheim City Council
voided the sale after allegations of possible back-door dealings surfaced in an
FBI affidavit.
According to the
affidavit, former Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu was accused of giving insider
information to the baseball team in an effort to earn a substantial campaign
donation. Sidhu resigned as mayor in April and has not been charged with a
crime.
And this week, Angels
baseball team owner Arte Moreno announced he was exploring a sale of the team.
In its response to the
grand jury report, Anaheim disagreed that it violated the “spirit” of
California’s Brown Act, an open meeting law that addresses, among other
actions, how city councils can discuss real estate negotiations and payments.
“The City met all Brown
Act requirements for the regularly scheduled 2013 meeting,” the city manager
wrote. The city also said that the actions of an entirely different city
council and staff made nearly a decade ago had no bearing on the recent sale
agreement with the Angels.
Anaheim also disagreed
with the grand jury’s finding that appointing Sidhu to the team negotiating the
stadium deal was unusual. The Brown Act allows them to appoint elected
officials to real estate negotiations, according to the letter.
Vanderpool said he also
found it “unusual” for the grand jury to suggest the city should appoint more
than one council representative to any negotiating committee. Adding more
elected officials would further politicize the matter.
The city agreed, however,
that more briefings with the city council would have provided more awareness to
the public about some of the details and progress of the stadium sale negotiations.
A two-week notice was
issued about a special city council meeting to consider an agreement for the
stadium sale and made the draft agreement available for public review,
Vanderpool wrote.
The city disagreed with a
report finding that said it failed to proactively promote public participation
by not conducting community workshops or other opportunities to engage the
community. The city held two informational meetings about the sale, according
to Vanderpool’s letter.
Anaheim also disagreed with
allegations about violating the state’s Surplus Land Act that requires the land
to first be offered to affordable housing developers. The state’s Department of
Housing and Community Development issued a notice of violation to city
attorneys in December 2021 but reached a settlement with the city this year.
“The truth is that
[Housing and Community Development] and the City had a dispute as to whether
the [Surplus Land Act] was violated or not. And rather than fight that battle
in court, HCD and the City were able to reach a compromised settlement,”
Vanderpool wrote.
Anaheim will require that
affordable housing remain a part of any future redevelopment of the stadium
property and a 15 percent set-aside of affordable housing units for very low-,
low- and moderate-income households, according to the response.
The city will also make
any future transactions regarding the stadium public for at least 30 days
before the city council takes action.
City councilmen Jose
Moreno and Avelino Valencia declined to support the response. Moreno said he
did not agree with the wording in the response and Valencia said he had
reservations because he was not on the council when the events occurred.
Councilman Jose Diaz
supported the staff’s effort to answer the grand jury.
“I respect the role of the
Orange County Grand Jury, but I also respect the time city staff put into the
response,” Diaz said. “This is not a political statement. This is just a
response to the grand jury.”
Epoch Times
Jill McLaughlin
August 24, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment