This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
February 08, 2011
L.A. stadium panel packed with AEG pals
The seasoned local business leaders picked by the mayor to analyze plans for a downtown NFL stadium on the public's behalf seem to have one thing in common: deep financial, political and civic ties with the company promoting the venue.
The article, by the Associated Press' Jacob Adelman, goes on to describe how six out of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's eight picks for the panel investigating AEG's downtown L.A. stadium plan has received campaign contributions from AEG or otherwise done business with them in recent years. Asks Robert Stern, president of L.A.'s Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles: "The question is: Is this commission designed to watch out for taxpayers, or is it designed to make sure the stadium gets built?"
To be fair, it's hard to be a major player in L.A. without having crossed paths with AEG, whose long tentacles reach into every corner of the entertainment industry. But that just points up one reason why stadium deals, which typically involve a major local developer or business titan, often get a less-than-jaundiced analysis from the local political classes: When you've done lunch with pretty much everybody who's anybody in town, you don't have to worry all that much that your golf buddies are going to look that hard at your financials.
The alternative, of course, would be to appoint somebody from outside the usual political sphere who has a track record of analyzing economic benefits. But that'd be crazy talk.
Plus ca change, Neil.
Edmonton City Council has just hired an "independent consultant" to look at the arena deal.
Guess who? Mark Rosentraub... this must be a usage of the term independent with which I am unfamiliar...
Posted by John Bladen on February 8, 2011 02:18 PM
HATER....... NO MATTER WHO LIKES IT OR WHO DOENT LIKE THE IDEA. IT IS TIME FOR LOS ANGELES TO GET BACK TO THE NFL. TOO MANY FANS HERE AND TOO MUCH OF A LARGE POPULATION NOT TO HAVE A PRO NFL TEAM HERE.
Posted by Me on February 8, 2011 03:39 PM
Neil,
You'd only do such a thing if you didn't want the venue/stadium/whatever, built. The leaders of LA obviously want an NFL team back in town and are willing to not only do whatever it takes in town to do so, but also get their reps in Sacramento to do so as well. And that's fine, we're all aware that's what they're doing, and so is the press and the public. And frankly if the poster above is any indication, a segment of the public doesn't much care. Which with football doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
If that's the case, then why bother with a blue-ribbon commission? Just declare, "We want a team, we don't care what it costs," and be done with it.
Posted by Neil deMause on February 8, 2011 04:13 PM
I think you know the answer to that Neil, they're playing the game. They need to at least make an effort to appear like they're impartial to placate those portions of the population that don't care about football.
Posted by Dan on February 8, 2011 04:51 PM
So they are lying as part of the game, Dan?
If the 'study' isn't going to be either impartial or reflect bona fide facts, why bother with it? Wouldn't politicians be more reasonably able to claim 'if we had only known' after the fact if they made no effort to actually learn about the proposed issue? Isn't deliberatly creating the false impression of diligent research worse than failing to do any at all? In my book it is.
It's only a 'game' if the outcome is undetermined. If the outcome is predetermined, it's just professional wrestling.
Posted by John Bladen on February 8, 2011 06:59 PM
Any way u slice it, its only a matter of time before the NFL is back in L.A. Personally, i think we're way overdue in having a team here... Seriously though, we're talking about the 2nd largest metropolitan area in the entire country "NOT" having an NFL team???!!! It makes absolutely "0" sense. And for all u people saying that L.A cannot support a team because the ones that were here before all left, i say, u all need to get your head examined. Its really quite simple, none of them were in a "state of the art stadium"! Where do u think the Lakers would be if Staples Center wouldnt have been built???? Please dont say the Forum!!! If they wouldnt have had a new facility to move into, they would've left also!
Posted by bottomline on February 9, 2011 03:00 AM
Bottom line:
Can you please link even a single post (on here or elsewhere) that suggests Los Angeles cannot support an NFL team?
The NFL would make boatloads of cash in Los Angeles. The only thing they have to surrender to do it is all the money they make by extorting other communities with the threat of the 'open' market of the Los Angeles.
I'm not sure which tactic would be more profitable, honestly...
Posted by John Bladen on February 9, 2011 01:33 PM
John,
Below is a letter I sent to the SJ Merc in early 2007 RE the 49er stadium plan (when they were at about the same point in the process as LA currently is). The letter wasn't published. In retrospect I invested far too much hope in city's professional staff to speak up (they kept quiet) and the voter's (who were living in oblivion):
A bit of skepticism is in order.
RE the 49ers proposal for a quasi public stadium authority bureaucracy to administer a 330 million bond issue and manage a city owned and operated palace for the team (Page 1A, April 30). Speaking as a ten year resident of the city, to this point I feel woefully misrepresented by my city council. I�m increasing dismayed by their seemingly credulous public statements regarding the 49ers trial balloons. I want to see more impartiality towards a plan which is at best a highly risky proposition that threatens both the city�s fiscal solvency and quality of life for residents�the vast majority of whom will never attend a game.
If the 49ers are such an important regional asset, the city should pass the hat to its neighbors to gauge the interest in coming up with upfront cash and maintenance fees. They should draw conclusions if they are little interested in participating.
This city council is in over their heads. This issue needs to be carefully analyzed by Santa Clara�s professional staff on their own timeline and put on the ballot for the residents to decide.
SCJ;
Thanks for that. I've always been of the opinion that councils (and elected officials in general) should be as far removed from the equation as possible. Obviously, they have to do the final voting (unless they go to plebiscite, which on a question that may result in a billion dollars or more of expenditure, one can argue should be the case...). But the actual negotiation with the private interests seeking simply massive public subsidy should be done by professionals in the negotiating field, hired and paid by the city (and who consent to background checks to make sure they aren't also being paid by the private interests...)
But time and time again, the elected politicians seem to feel they can master a lifetime of negotiation skills in an evening before the vote, or worse, appoint one of their incompetent executive employees (and lifelong season ticket holders) to 'get the best deal they can'.
...what luck for men that leaders do not think...
or thereabouts...