Special (4)
Public Comment
From:H Garten <grtnhs@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:Public Comment
Cc:Jose Moreno
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Anaheim Stadium Sale Legal Settlement (proposed), Vote No...
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
April 26, 2022
We three, Warren Garten, Marcia Garten and Steven Garten and we all vote in every election here in Anaheim since
2000, are strongly opposed to the settlement regarding the sale of the Angel Stadium, as proposed, between the City
of Anaheim and the State Attorney General’s Office. As proposed, the settlement absolves the City’s illegal no-bid
sale of our most valuable asset; levies a $100 million fine that should otherwise be in our general fund for parks,
neighborhood services, infrastructure, and public safety; and the settlement further intensifies racial and economic
segregation in our city by pushing affordable housing away from the 153 acres stadium district and platinum
triangle–in direct contradiction to our Housing Element as submitted to the State of California. In essence, this
settlement approves an illegal act that is akin to someone taking your home and offering your child a bicycle to
compensate.
It is inarguable that the City of Anaheim and its residents will benefit greatly from the affordable housing that will
come from the Angel Stadium settlement. I hope that the housing will be equitably spatially distributed throughout
the City, and that the City prioritizes very low income (VLI) and low income (LI) units. Through my role as a City
Council member since 2018, I have remained and continue to be a firm advocate for affordable housing, especially
for very low income and low income households. I have firmly advocated that affordable housing be equitably
spatially distributed throughout the City, even at times when the current council majority did not wish to converse
and agendize the topic when it came to the Housing Element and/or other development projects that have come up to
a vote.
Anaheim's settlement for the Angel Stadium transaction has concerning implications for the application of the
California Surplus Land Act and advocates ability to advocate for meaningful projects with deep affordable housing
on publicly-owned surplus properties. The CA SLA is designed to prioritize affordable housing and other
community benefits on publicly-owned surplus properties. With the settlement, it appears the City does not have to
build affordable housing units onsite, which is in opposition to one of the goals of the SLA of having affordable
housing incorporated to a proposed project.
Moreoever, throughout the Angel Stadium negotiation and ultimately its sale, there was a clear issue of
transparency. Mayor Sidhu appointed himself as the representative of the City in negotiations with the intention that
he would report to council and receive their input for a negotiation agreement. However, Sidhu came back and
decided on a proposed sale agreement and left little to no room for consultation with the Council and the public.
Additionally, the City did not provide public forums where residents and other members of the public could learn
about the ongoing negotiations and provide their input. Mayor Sidhu and the Council majority decided that they
knew what was best for Anaheim without consulting residents and the public.
On December 2021 the CA Housing and Community Development department concluded that the City was in
violation of of the CA Surplus Land Act and found that:
1. The City failed to declare the Angel Stadium property as “surplus”
2. The City failed to put out a notice of availability as required by the SLA
1
3. The City violated the Surplus Land Act by failing to provide HCD the information and documents required by
Government Code section 54230.5(b)(1) prior to agreeing to terms to dispose of the Property.
The question remains, “Why did the Council Majority choose to not put this land up for a bid under the SLA process
and resolve this sooner?” As a longtime Anaheim resident and Anaheim council member, I am concerned of the
precedent we are setting as a City and what it signals to other municipalities that they can circumvent the law and
negotiate a deal on publicly-owned surplus properties behind closed doors and simply pay a fine later down the line.
The bottom line is this: Mayor Harry Sidhu, and his Council majority, illegally sold our Anaheim Stadium and
surrounding land on a no-bid real estate deal that is now costing the taxpayers of Anaheim $100 million in state
imposed fines. While the $100 million fine will go toward building affordable housing in Anaheim, the fact remains
that the law was broken. Ends do not justify the means. As proposed, the settlement pushes such affordable housing
away from the stadium site furthering racial and economic segregation in our City. So once again, the flatlands of
Anaheim will bear the responsibility of Mayor Sidhu and his Council majority’s illegal behavior. The message to
Anaheim residents–take a back seat to the Mayor’s friends and campaign contributors; and if you are a hard-working
resident in our City? You may work and serve in Anaheim but you are not welcome to live in the Stadium district.
Thank you,
Marcia, Warren and Steve Garten
Anaheim Ca 92805
2