More brickbats for Anaheim on canceled Angel Stadium deal

A grand jury found Anaheim’s negotiations for a $320 million sale of Angel Stadium lacked transparency and were marred by “rushed decision making.”

The Orange County Grand Jury cited a “persistent lack of transparency” in talks of stadium transactions and Anaheim’s alleged violation of a state affordable housing law in its now failed stadium deal, according to a report cited by the Orange County Register.

It said a City Council majority excluded colleagues from information on the deal. It called their handling of talks “inappropriate,” saying they “betrayed” constituents.

The grand jury’s findings were laid out in a 20-page report that pointed to “myriad problems” with how city officials discussed a sale of the 150-acre property, which led to a furor among residents and a lawsuit against the city.

The jury launched the investigation because of the heavy public scrutiny city officials received during the sale talks and after Anaheim was notified it had violated the state’s Surplus Land Act in the transaction, according to the report.

“With recent events and new information brought to light,” issues in the grand jury report “now are being thoroughly discussed as part of a new, extensive public process for our city,” an Anaheim spokesperson said in a statement.

The grand jury’s review began “well before” it learned of a federal corruption probe into then-mayor Harry Sidhu, accused of providing confidential information about the stadium sale in hopes of receiving $1 million in campaign aid. He has not been charged with wrongdoing.

In a little more than a week, in any case, Sidhu had stepped down and the City Council had voided the agreement to sell the stadium to SRB Management, the business partnership of Angel’s owner Arte Moreno.

The grand jury aimed to uncover findings and provide recommendations for improving city transparency and compliance with California law in any future real property transactions.

It said there were numerous flaws in the council’s discussion of the stadium deal, including a failure of the City Council to safeguard public transparency by upholding “the spirit of the Brown Act” during significant decisions relating to the lease and/or sale of the stadium property.

It’s report also said an Anaheim amended a policy dictating how the mayor and City Council can add items to meeting agendas, which intentionally precluded the council from agendizing further discussion on the stadium transactions at future City Council meetings.

The Grand Jury recommended the City Council implement a minimum 30-day period during which the public and city leaders can discuss sales or leases of public land, and for any future stadium sale to include affordable housing.

[Orange County Register] – Dana Bartholomew

Read more

Los Angeles

Anaheim scuttles $320-million sale of Angel Stadium

Los Angeles

Anaheim mayor steps down, critics call for end to $320M Angel Stadium sale