Tait’s Letter to the Editor in OC Register; No Plan Offered to Keep the Team

Anaheim mayor Tom Tait penned a letter to the OC Register today that proclaims his love for Anaheim’s hometown team and blames his political opponents to suggesting he’s rather build condos than keep the Angels here (though I haven’t seen that anywhere).  But no where does Tait offer a plan to keep the Angels in Anaheim for the long haul.  No where does he invite Angels owner Arte Moreno back to the negotiations table.

Here’s Tait’s whiney letter:

It’s October and the Angels are going into post-season play with the best record in baseball. As a lifelong Angel baseball fan, I couldn’t be happier. The Angels have been part of the fabric of this community—and my family life—for decades. We’ve been season ticket holders since the stadium was built. Like all Angel fans, I do not want my hometown team to leave.

There are some in our community who would lead you to believe otherwise. It’s time to set the record straight.

There are factions in Anaheim who, in order to promote their candidate for mayor, are attempting to have residents believe that I want to drive the Angels out of town. They want you to believe that I am promoting condominium development over baseball. That’s simply untrue.

The Angels currently lease the stadium and parking lot from the City of Anaheim and the taxpayers who own the property. That lease does not expire until 2029. However, the Angels have the option to leave midway through the lease if they so choose. The lease states that if they do choose to leave, they must be out by 2016. Last September, the council majority voted to extend the deadline by three years. I voted against this move because I felt that it gave the team leverage to potentially build a stadium elsewhere or at least imply that they are.

At the same time that they voted to extend the lease, the council approved two Memorandums of Understanding, or MOUs.  These two documents set the framework for negotiating a lease extension with the Angels.  I didn’t vote for this framework because it was a terrible deal for the people of Anaheim.  While there are many points of contention, my main points of concern are giving away the 150 acres of the parking lot surrounding the ballpark for $1/year for 66 years, shifting of responsibility to the city for maintenance of the stadium itself (currently the obligation of the Angels), and dropping “Anaheim” altogether from the team name. Over the last year, the city council did not finalize this framework into an actual lease amendment.  It would have taken three votes of this same council to do so. They didn’t, and now the Angels have announced that they have terminated the terms of the framework.

Some groups in town are leading people to believe that I, as mayor, killed this deal. The Angels needed three votes for the new lease agreement—I only have one vote. So the reality is a new lease agreement that serves the interests of all stakeholders has not yet been struck. Unfortunately, instead of continuing negotiations, my political opponents on the city council and their allies have decided to play election-time politics.

This November the voters have a decision to make.  You can expect lots of direct mail in the next few weeks. This propaganda will try to scare voters into voting for candidates who will rubber stamp a deal that is more beneficial to professional baseball than it is to the taxpayers of our city.  As your mayor, I trust your wisdom to decide our shared future, but I want to promise you this:  I will never put my political future in front of what is best for the people of Anaheim. 

I am committed to continue negotiating with the Angels to attain a new framework that works for the taxpayers, the fans, the players and the owners. I am confident that we can craft such a deal.

I have every intention of taking my grandson to many baseball games here in Anaheim.  But as your mayor, I will not jeopardize my grandchild’s future—or yours—by overcommitting taxpayer resources to benefit a professional sports franchise. I am a huge fan, but Anaheim’s interests will always come first.

Wah-wah-wah.  Funny how Tait didn’t mention the lawsuit his Taitbots at CATER filed on the flimsy grounds that the MOUs were binding; even the Angels, in notifying the city that were terminating negotiations, said the MOUs were non-binding.  Funny how Tait didn’t mention his family holds property adjacent to Angels Stadium — land that is worth a lot more without a team.  No other city with a Major League franchise has the deal with their team that Tait wants for Anaheim and Tait might be forgetting the millions of dollars in charitable contributions the Angels make to the city every year.  Tait left out how many jobs would be lost should the Angels leave and the loss of economic benefit to the city if they go (kiss goodbye any hope of an NBA frnachise).  If the Angels go, could the Ducks be far ahead?

The fact is Tait is talking out of both sides of this mouth.  The more successful the Angels are in the playoffs, the more attention it calls to negotiations with the city.  Tait says he wants the team here but….. and it’s a big but.

I wonder how many “Keep the Angels” signs the mayor is going to see tonight at the game.  Tait might want to wear sunglasses so fans won’t recognize him as he makes his way to the city’s suite.