Much happening in Anaheim over the weekend, coinciding with a family visit, made it impossible to get to this post any sooner, but some big doings nonetheless. Namely Pettibone fallout, CATER loses in Court, and the Angels break off negotiations with Anaheim.
First off, the Pettibone Caper as Tom Tait’s hand-picked council candidate withdrew from the city council race; we were the first to report it **after** Pettibone had sent his withdrawl letter to the city clerk’s office. The entire affair was useful on a number of fronts — we learned Pettibone is on this third marriage (with the first two being somewhat explosive), seems incapable of conducting an Internet search to find out if his past legal transgressions were “findable,” and that Tom Tait, who prides himself on careful introspection and examination of the issues, either didn’t do a good enough job of vetting his neighbor for a political run for office or was fully aware of Pettibone’s past and went with him anyway (“Have you ever been arrested Doug? would have been a good question).
Pettibone’s resignation letter was viewed by other blogs as demonstrating “grace and class.” Nope. The voters in Anaheim were spared someone who wasn’t honest with them about his own background.
The rub is Anaheim will observe “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” in October and domestic violence doesn’t always mean physical violence against women, or children or the elderly. It often comes in the form of emotional and verbal abuse. When the news broke that Pettibone quit as a result of an inquiry by lifelong Anaheim resident Lisa Lewis who simply asked Mayor Tait why he promoted a candidate with a history of spousal abuse to the council’s race. The Tait bots exploded with rage attacking Lewis for having the temerity to question “Saint Tait.” Lewis is herself a domestic violence survivor and OJ blogger Greg Diamond called Lewis a longtime Republican activist — which isn’t true because Lewis hasn’t given a dime to any candidate in any race ever and is not a volunteer on any campaign, even thought she’s certainly expressed preferences for candidates she’ll support in the next election. I’ll note Diamond’s poor choice of words in his post on OJ: “Pettibone is very gracious, in his letter in not coming out swinging against Lewis, recognizing her right to make such charges against him without consequences.” I’m delighted to know that someone who’s faced a spousal battery charge isn’t “coming out swinging” against a former victim of domestic violence.
Diamond asks questions of Lewis; and they are questions I have answers to so I’ll offer them here in Italics:
How did she come to have the knowledge required to write this letter? She lives in the general area where Pettibone does and they know people in common; neighbors were aware of his marital history and they talk about it. She took it a step further to see if it was true.
Specifically, how did she get access to publicly unavailable court records — or whatever evidence she obtained? It’s online and you have to know where to look. She did.
What if any steps did she take to verify the legitimacy of this evidence — or did she care whether she was being duped? She verified it online, so she was duped how exactly?
Who helped her write her letter — as it completely stinks of Political Consultant? She wrote the letter herself; she doesn’t know any political consultants. Did Pettibone’s consultant write his letter?
Who put her up to, or encouraged her to, releasing it? She did so on her own.
Can she point to anything she’s written, or any activity she’s engaged in, that suggests that Domestic Violence is a major issue of interest to her? Maybe she can. It would be nice if she could. Given that half of her letter is taken up with a discussion of football player Ray Rice, misapplied statistics regarding spousal abuse, and noting that we’re soon entering Domestic Violence Awareness Month, it would be VERY UNFORTUNATE if she simply latched onto these things as the hook for a political attack against someone else. As a Domestic Violence advocate, if she is one — rather that simply regurgitating points cynically prepared by someone else — she should certainly agree that it diminishes this cause for it to be used cynically for political gain. Ms. Lewis is a victim of domestic abuse; she was verbally and emotionally abused by an ex-husband. In addition, she is a CERT volunteer for the Fire Department, and a volunteer for the Police Department where she encounters victims of domestic violence and is in discussions with the police department on how o better serve the community and volunteers for a charity that protects senior citizens from elder abuse. Additionally, she volunteers with the Orange Family Justice Center. I’ll note her letter to Tait wasn’t a political attack. It was an inquiry. Tait responded that he was unaware of the allegations and, after Pettibone stepped down, he later replied to Lewis with a copy of Pettibone’s letter stating ” I believe it speaks for itself.” Lewis is responding to Tait’s inadequate response this week.
My favorite part of this whole Diamond post is that somehow Lorri Galloway stands to lose the most from this entire event even though she has nothing to do with this entirely Republican affair. Really, Lorri Galloway will lose votes because of Pettibone and Tait?
None of this stopped Tait’s capo Cynthia Ward from reposting huge portions of Lewis’s Facebook page to allege Lewis is some sort of Kris Murray campaign worker, and even if Lewis is, so what. Let’s see if Cynthia adhere’s to Tait’s standing of kindness in this grab from her comment: “There is NO JUSTIFIABLE COMPARISON of this current relationship in the Pettibone family with the genuine evil that engulfs too many women in today’s society, and it is exploitative, and-I will say it-indicative of the lowest form of BITCH for Lewis and/or her favored candidates to use the fear that our battered sisters endure as a prop for their own political gain!” Calling an abused woman who dared question Tait about his hand picked choice makes her the lowest form of bitch? Stay classy Cynthia.
Does anyone know how Donna Acevedo got that black eye she showed off at the council meeting a couple of weeks ago?
Next, CATER lost its lawsuit against the City of Anaheim over the financing of the Anaheim Convention Center expansion. Here’s the city’s press release:
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULES IN ANAHEIM’S FAVOR
Approves City of Anaheim’s bond financing for the Anaheim Convention Center
ANAHEIM, Calif. (September 26, 2014) Today, the Orange County Superior Court gave a resounding victory to the City of Anaheim by validating the City’s approved financing of the much-needed expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center. The Court concluded that the Anaheim Public Financing Authority properly acted in approving issuance of up to $300 Million in bonds for this project, which benefits the City, the region and the community.
On May 12, 2014, local organization CATER (Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility) submitted its lawsuit in opposition to the City’s financing mechanism for the Convention Center expansion project. The lawsuit caused the cancellation of the bond sale, delayed the project, and caused the City to be liable for increased construction fees as well as legal expenses. The City now intends to proceed with the financing.
“I am thankful that the Court recognized the need to expeditiously review this matter and confirmed what the City and most people knew all along: That this case, brought by outside special interests and a handful of community members, was entirely frivolous and of great harm to the City’s economic prosperity. This meritless action by CATER and the Inland Oversight Committee unfortunately has cost the City tens of millions of dollars in increased construction and financing costs,” said City Attorney Michael R.W. Houston.
The bond approval is intended to support the Anaheim Convention Center expansion, refund debt at a lower interest rate and finance other community improvements.
Since opening in 1967, revenues generated by the Anaheim Convention Center and related activities have consistently supported overall City services, thereby improving the quality of life for Anaheim’s residents.
The proposed Anaheim Convention Center expansion project encompasses the addition of 200,000 square feet of flexible meeting space for hosting concurrent events, capturing new meeting groups and retaining the large annual events, plus the replacement of Car Park 1. The current Anaheim Convention Center has limited meeting space opportunities and limits the ability to accommodate concurrent events.
It is conservatively estimated that the City’s General Fund would be better off by $115 million over the next decade and $320 million over a 30-year period by expanding, as determined by an outside consultant (Crossroads Consulting Services).
Each year the City generates millions of dollars due to the large annual events booked at the Anaheim Convention Center. Attendance over the past five years averages nearly 1.1 million guests at Convention Center events alone. This translates to hotel room stays, dining, shopping and entertainment for those guests, many of whom use the opportunity to plan a family vacation or extend their stay to enjoy Anaheim and Orange County’s many amenities.
In 2010, the City Council, by Resolution, established the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) for the promotion of local tourism and convention-related programs. Hoteliers in the Anaheim Resort agreed to self-assess 2% of hotel room rent within the ATID boundaries for projects in the Anaheim Resort. The creation of the ATID relieved the City’s General Fund of $6 million annually, beginning in 2010, and freed-up these dollars to pay for this Anaheim Convention Center expansion project. Assuming TOT revenues would grow at a conservative estimate of 3%, it is estimated that the value of the ATID would be approximately $450 million, and is greater than estimated lease payments on the bond issuance.
To ensure that the incremental new revenues would be available for General Fund programs, the City Council approved a financing plan that keeps the General Fund’s annual lease payment obligations for capital improvements where they are today.
For more on the Anaheim Convention Center expansion and to read the Staff Report, please click here, and forward to item 27.
For more information on the City of Anaheim, please visit www.anaheim.net.
Now the positioning from our friends at CATER is this case was always meant to go to the appellate court (even though its the first anyone has heard that line) and CATER attorney Greg Diamond vows to appeal this up to the California Supreme Court, assuming it gets that far. One lawyer we spoke with about CATER launching an appeal told us, “That’s a common answer for people who lose.”
We spoke with Anaheim’s city attorney Michael Houston late this morning about the case. Here’s what he had to say: “The trial court ruled Friday, as many of those who know it would all along and after considering facts and the law, that Anaheim’s financing of these much needed improvement to the Anaheim Convention Center was fully consistent with the law. It’s my belief and the belief of our bond lawyers that from day one, that this case was entirely meritless and frivolous. And it cost the city tens of millions of dollars in increased construction costs,” said Houston. “The judge declined to rule in favor of the plaintiff on every claim they raised. In addition, the city prevailed on a ruling that the plaintiff’s had not properly sought to include necessary parties to the action, such that no ruling could be granted in favor of the plaintiff. The court ruling was based nearly 20 years of binding California Supreme Court case law which has authorized this sort of financing transaction mechanism all throughout California.”
Now while CATER has every right to appeal, the vast majority of cases are upheld by the appeal courts especially since it appears the judge threw out every argument filed by CATER’s lawyers. And I get the impression the judge felt the case was wholly without merit. There’s discussion that one of the grounds for an appeal was due to a change in presiding judges, but legal experts tell us that CATER should have called that out when the change happened and they can’t do it after the fact. One gets the impression there was a lot of sloppy lawyering in the case. We are not surprised.
It’s our understanding that the city can move forward with the expansion efforts even if the case goes to appeal. There’s no question from city officials that not only did the lawsuit cost the city millions of dollars in higher construction costs, but tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs. Houston tells me this sort of case allows the city to recover costs of litigation from CATER, but Houston wasn’t prepared to say how much that was exactly. It’s a matter of the city demonstrating their litigation costs to the judge. Could be $5,000; could be $50,000. We don’t know yet because the city is still figuring it out.
CATER’s lawyer Diamond thinks this might be a California Supreme Court case (dude, I read you’re post, US Supreme Court wouldn’t even consider this, but to imply I didn’t know you meant “California Supreme Court” means you’re dumber than I think you are). But the CATER ruling in Anaheim is also good news for those involved in the convention center expansion in San Diego, which CATER is also involved with (someone please explain Anaheim’s compelling interest in San Diego government).
Lastly, the Angels have broken off negotiations with the city of Anaheim and they are holding talks with the city of Tustin. There’s much speculation in the blogsphere that Angels owner Arte Moreno did this at this time for political reasons. I’m told by dear friends in Arizona who’ve done business with Moreno and his family that Arte could care less about politics and is instead more focused on bottom line business. So in other words, lots more from the conspiracy theorists out there that Moreno is political. He’s not.
So the answer to the question, “where are the Angels going to go?” It looks like Tustin (and I wouldn’t mind). But when you consider how fast the Atlanta Braves will be building their new stadium in Cobb County GA, when it will be occupied, and how the new stadium will be financed, there is no reason that Moreno and the Angels can’t move just as fast here in OC in Tustin. None whatsoever (and if you want to point to those pesky environmental regulations, the state supercharged them for the new arena in Sacramento and there’s no reason they wouldn’t in Tustin). And about Tustin’s Master Plan? It can be changed. Hey Anaheim, if you don’t want the Angels, someone else will. And about those millions the Angels give to charities every year? They’ll go elsewhere.
The Angels open the playoffs with the best record in baseball. Mike Trout is likely to be the MVP of the American League. The Angels might have home field advantage throughout the playoffs through to the World Series. There is considerable bad blood between Tait and Moreno. The longer the Angels run in the playoffs goes, the worse it will be for the Mayor if it becomes more likely the Angels want out of Anaheim. And if they want out, Anaheim stands to lose hundreds of jobs, millions in tax revenue and millions in charitable contributions made by the Angels to Anaheim charities.
I have to wonder what sort of grassroots effort the Anaheim Chamber might run to make fans aware of Tait’s role in making the Angels look elsewhere. I also wonder how many games the Tait bots took in this season? None is my guess.