It has been a little over two years since the filing of the lawsuit looking to invalidate the sale of Angel Stadium property. On February 23, 2022, the lawsuit will finally be heard.
As per the sale contract, an organization controlled by Los Angeles Angels owner Arturo Moreno would create a minicity on the property. Homes, shops, offices, hotels, and restaurants would be around the ballpark in that city. The legal action has made the closing late, meaning there has not been any construction activity on the property since the approval of the sale from the City Council.
What Is At Risk?
The fate of this agreement is at stake. The validity of the sale of the stadium has been questioned on multiple fronts. The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) has declared it illegal, ruling that Anaheim city failed to make the property available to residential developers and thus breached the affordable housing rule of the state. Anaheim and California are attempting to arrive at a negotiated decision that would require the state to avoid interfering with the sale and the city to pay a penalty.
For the transaction to proceed, however, Anaheim also requires the judge who is part of the legal action to uphold this deal.
What Is In Question In This Lawsuit?
As per a councilor and the erstwhile city manager’s sworn testimony in the year 2019, the council chose to sell this land. The testimony states that the council arrived at the decision without public knowledge with a law in California that lets a city keep terms and price discussions part of a negotiation confidential. However, as per an Anaheim timeline, it did not officially negotiate with the company of Moreno until November that year.
It is still the most significant of accusations in this lawsuit, which the People’s Homeless Task Force Orange County filed. PHTFOC alleges that Anaheim violated the so-called Brown Act more than once. For your information, the Brown Act is a law that generally necessitates people to do public business in public.
What Does Anaheim Say?
Anaheim claims that it acted as per the rule. In its legal reply, Anaheim’s lawyer described the claims from the erstwhile city manager and the councilor as factually inaccurate. Why? Because the said discussion without public knowledge concerned a formal site appraisal when there was no negotiation over a sale. Anaheim states that the council chose to sell this stadium later in 2019 after a judicial hearing where PHTFOC representatives were part of the speakers.
As per the court filing of Anaheim, the erstwhile city manager was disgruntled. The city’s lawyer stated that councilor Jose Moreno, who gave his testimony against the city, consistently disputed the Los Angeles Angels’ transaction. It means that Moreno has long been an opponent of this deal.
In another statement, Anaheim stated that just because an action does not favor you, it does not cause it to be unlawful.
Should The Judge Discover That Anaheim Has Breached The Law, Would He Need To Discard The Deal?
As per lawyers for the Los Angeles Angels, he would not have to do so in the following scenario. A provision lets a deal outlast a lawsuit when a neutral party assumed an agreement obligation and took honest action without noticing a legal challenge to its validity. The challenge notice followed the approval of the deal from the council. PHTFOC disagree with the above-mentioned understanding of the state law.
Would The Judge Possibly Rule On February 23, 2022?
To cut the long story short, no. Judge David A. Hoffer of the Superior Court of Orange County has stated that he looks forward to asking questions in the hearing on February 23, 2022 and issuing his ruling later.
Does This Lawsuit Look To Destroy The Deal Forever?
The lawyer for PHTFOC states that it does not seek to do so. As per the lawyer, it looks to make Anaheim do the negotiations again with appropriate public input.
Anaheim regards it as a deal done with the said input and feels that the recent lawsuit could kill it. There is also concern that Moreno may walk away when the deal does not complete, partly since it would be his second negotiation with Anaheim staff to have collapsed.
The aforesaid situation could make the Angels complete its existing lease, extending through 2038, without forcing a development at the large number of parking areas. The development is likely to create millions as tax money for Anaheim over three decades, as per a Moreno-commissioned study.
Is There An Uproar In The City Regarding The Deal?
The answer may vary depending on which party you ask the question. Anaheim states that residents support the deal. In the lone Anaheim city election after the approval of the deal, two counselors were part of the ballot. The counselor who voted in favor of the deal got re-elected, whereas the person who did otherwise was not.
However, the candidate who runs against Mayor Harry Sidhu this year, Ashleigh Aitken, stated that the first thing that residents discuss with her is concern regarding the deal.
How Has The Lawsuit Impacted The Council Of Anaheim?
Anaheim has requested the US court to discard the testimony of Moreno for two reasons. Firstly, it alleges that he had disregarded restrictions on the revelation of discussions without public knowledge. Secondly, it feels that Moreno misrepresented those discussions. Sidhu and Moreno seem to have a relationship that is frayed beyond repair.
In the council meeting on February 15, 2022, Moreno not only found what he testified to be true but he also challenged the mayor to testify. On the other hand, Sidhu stated that he would believe that his pieces of writing for the OC Register are true.