Council Approves Taxpayer Protection Act, Rejects Ballot-Box Budgeting, Switches Angels Negotiator

brawl

The Anaheim City Council voted on a number of controversial agenda items last night in a marathon meeting that lasted until almost midnight.

Anaheim Taxpayer Protection Act
Councilwoman Kris Murray’s proposed amendment to the city charter would raise the vote threshold for the city council to place a new or increased tax before the voters from a simple majority to two-thirds. The case for supporting this charter amendment has been made by myself and others (here, here and here); there’s no need to re-hash them here. Those arguing against the amendment objected to making it harder to raise taxes.

The council 3-2 to place the amendment on the November 2016 ballot. Councilmembers Murray, Lucille Kring and James Vanderbilt voted in favor; Mayor Tom Tait and Councilman Jordan Brandman voted in opposition.

“Let The People Vote” and “Protect Taxpayers from Debt” Acts
These are two ballot-box budgeting charter amendments in the progressive tradition of direct democracy. They would carve out a city-wide vote requirement for two very specific city government spending decisions: using TOT revenue to assist hotel development (“Let The People Vote” Act) , and participation in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) action to issue bonds (Protect Taxpayers from Debt” Act). No other city use of tax revenue, no matter how large, would be subject to direct voter approval.

Regarding the “Protect Taxpayers from Debt” Act, according to the OC Register:

“Another city-commissioned report by Public Financial Management found that Tait’s proposal would have made it difficult for Anaheim to quickly take advantage of low-interest bond rates by waiting for voter approval.”

The city council voted 4-1 to reject putting JPA-issued bonds to a popular vote; Mayor Tait voting “yes.”

The council then voted 3-2 to reject placing the “Let The People Vote” Act – a re-named version of the failed 2012 “Take Back Anaheim” initiative funded by the OCEA – was  on the ballot. Councilmembers Murray and Brandman and Mayor Pro Tem Kring in opposition; Mayor Tait and Councilman Vanderbilt in support.

Charles Black Replaced By Wylie Aitken As City’s Negotiator With The Angels
Another contentious item was Mayor Tom Tait request to fire veteran professional baseball negotiator Charles Black – who was re-hired a month ago to negotiate for the city with the Angels — with Anaheim resident and super-lawyer Wylie Aitken.

I have known Wylie Aitken since I was a teenager; he’s a friend, a great man and outstanding attorney.  At the same time, I don’t think such volatility on the city’s part is conducive to productive negotiations.  The Angels have to wonder who is in charge, with whom they are really negotiating, and who can actually cinch a deal.

Lucille Kring offered an sensible compromise amendment to Tait’s motion: hire Wylie Aitken as part of the negotiating team with Charles Black.  That would have brought the strengths and experience of both men to bear for the city. Wylie Aitken himself was supportive of this approach. Unfortunately, the only members of the council who were interested in a sensible compromise were Kring and Murray, and the amendment failed.

What’s done is done; Godspeed to Wylie Aitken and his securing a win-win deal for Anaheim and the Angels.

126 comments

  1. It’s my understanding Charles Black was required to complete a Form 700, disclosing his financial interests and sources of income. Will Wiley Aitken be required to do the same?

    And is it wise for the city to be represented by an attorney who is actively, right now, suing the City of Anaheim for huge sums of money? Has he,m or is he now, engaged in any litigation against the Angels? Did anyone even bother to find out? Or is the most important criterion that the city’s negotiator can’t ever disagree with King Tait?

    • I’d wager a guess the most important criterion for the city’s negotiator is to not suck.

      • Thanks for proving everyone has an opinion, Ryan, along with other physical features.

        • Oh RJ. You’re so witty. And original.

          Here’s a comprehensive list of the concessions secured by Mr. Black from the Angels during his original tenure representing Anaheim’s interests. I’ll leave it to you to determine its level of suck.

          End List.

    • The City of Anaheim itself engaged in litigation with the Angels when Pringle was Mayor, so what’s your point?

      Because it now matters for conflict-of-interest reasons, I’ll confirm that he’s not involved with CATER. But I will be very surprised if — unless specifically ordered to by his client or the City Attorney supervising him — he comes back with anything like the “Grounds Lease MOU” that Charles Black put together.

      Speaking for myself, not CATER: I would NOT be surprised, though, if he were able to engineer a deal where development on most of the lot would be allowed because Arte Moreno waives his right to encumbrances on too many parking spaces to make it feasible. This would happen under the existing lease if the City, alone or in association with Moreno, were to build a very big above-ground parking structure.

      So long as the City profits very substantially from parking in the lot (probably built to either the north or the east of the stadium) — as in, a permanent share of parking revenues (which are now 0%) equal to the percentage that the City pays into its construction, operation, and maintenance, that’s FINE. And it would easily pass a public vote, too, given the likelihood that all factions of the Council would support it.

      This “joint venture” is what Mayor Tait proposed on both Sept. 3 and Sept. 24, 2013 — and he couldn’t even get a second to explore this prospect. Maybe the passing of the Charles Black era means that there would be at least three votes on the Council to pursue a plan that would be of certain, rather than speculative, financial benefit to Anaheim. (It would ideally be accompanied by an agreement by the Angels to extend their stay through the end date of the bonds, so there’s something to park for.)

  2. One more thing: Tait demanded the city hire one of his campaign contributors to be the city’s negotiator to the Angels, but no mention of that in the Voice of OC coverage.

    You can bet that if Kris Murray and Lucille Kring had received contributions from Charles Black, Adam Elmahrek’s angle would have been “Councilmembers give city negotiator contract to campaign contributor.” The pro-Tait bias in Voice of OC coverage is appalling and unprofessional.

    • Of note, the Angels are contributors to Kris Murray and Lucille Kring’s campaigns.

      I don’t believe that was discussed in the Voice, either.

      • So? Adam Elmahrek obsessively reports on contributors to the members of the council majority. He routinely attempts to tie their GardenWalk votes to campaign contributions.

        Now Tait demands the city fire its negotiator and instead hire a political supporter and campaign contributor, and the Voice has no interest. Don’t pretend you don’t see the double standard.

        • I’m not going to assume anyone’s agenda, editing requirements, or intended message in writing an article.

          I will tell you that running around on blogs claiming that Anaheim’s Mayor has a conflict while ignoring the glaring maximum donations from Arte Moreno to Lucille Kring and Kris Murray during the last election is a bit . . . well, I think you know.

          But hey, we have no idea who you are or what your intentions are. You could be Charles Black for all we know.

    • RJ I am infinitely more concerned with the campaign donations to Kris Murray within days of the September 3 vote, at which time what appears to be the entire executive team of a major land development company that owns the property contiguous to the Stadium District parcel all spontaneously gave Murray the exact same amount in contributions for the one and only time in the history of her administration, that I can find.

      THAT is far more alarming and indicative of a back room deal than tying a donation from Wylie Aitken, so I assume has given to Tait previously, and in a manner consistent with his pattern of donating. What are you saying? Aitken hoped he could score a thankless job certain to give him an ulcer, IF the Angels permit him to get to the bargaining table for fear he might be compelled to actually look after the best interests of Anaheim taxpayers? At least Aitken is an Anaheim resident and might go home for dinner, while Charles Black hit the taxpayers for his celebratory dinner post-meeting the night of September 3, AND charged us his $350 an hour rate to consume it, while Michael Houston redacted the name of Black’s dinner guest from public disclosure, claiming “attorney client privilege.

      Nope nothing to see here, keep moving. By the way, there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with King Tait and actually browbeating a client in a public and televised forum, calling him RECKLESS because he wanted more than an hour to conduct his due diligence regarding a report lacking source material or footnotes which staff refused to permit the public to see or review in any form prior to the vote.

      One of those options gets you into court. Welcome to Anaheim’s new reality. No, Wylie Aitken is not involved in CATER’s litigation if that is what you are hinting at. But I would not have turned him away had we made his acquaintance prior to his being hired by the City.

      Try again, readers are not quite distracted enough from the hypocrisy just yet.

      • If he had dinner with a City employee we have the right to know. We also have to ask why the taxpayer gets stuck paying for this guy to eat (very slowly) at the most expensive restaurant in town.

      • Bill O’Connell’s campaign contributions to councilmembers up to the GardenWalk votes were “in a manner consistent with his pattern of donating,” Cynthia. But that doesn’t stop you and your friends from claiming the council was rewarding “a politically-connected donor.”

        Wylie Aitken is unquestionably a politically-connected donor. Once again, you are caught applying a double-standard.

        • When Wylie Aitken gets himself a $158,000,000 subsidy out of this, feel free to regurgitate this swill.

          Until then, that’s not a double standard.

          • “Because I say so!” There’s a powerful argument for you.

            You make it up as you go along, don’t you, Ryan? Now you’re quibbling about the amount, not that a “politically connected donor” received a city contract or subsidy. So, the GardenWalk deal would have been OK with you if the subsidy was smaller. What’s the allowable amount? $50 million? $10 million? $1 million?

            • Yes, I do make it up as I go. As do you.

              Look, if you want to say that a $158,000,000 carve out for ONE donor– something that was specifically engineered for this guy– is the same as a small contract within the DOA for the city manager that’s going to be spent anyway (regardless of who gets the contract) are the same thing, I guess I can’t really argue with you.

              I don’t think they’re the same thing.

              • Thank you for admitting the obvious, but speak for yourself.

                The GW deal wasn’t created out of thin air for a donor. It was an evolution of an existing TOT subsidy policy, a policy that Tom Tait voted for as a councilman. Yes, he now repudiates that vote, just as he has been flip-flopping on a number of votes and policies since becoming mayor that he had previously supported. Maybe someday he’ll explain why. Was he duped? Was he not paying attention during his 8 years on the council? Was a tool of the Kleptocracy but he has now broken free?

                Ryan, you’re throwing aside the “politically connected donor” argument and are back to arguing that what matters is the size of the subsidy, not against using TOT subsidies to encourage luxury hotel development.

                It reminds me of the anecdote about Winston Churchill and the socialite:

                “Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”

                Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”

                Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”

                Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”

                Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

                You’re not the spokesman for Churchill’s position.

                • Forward me the policy and the notification that went out announcing a change, then we’ll talk.

                  Seeing how that actually never happened, I’ll stick with “engineered” vs. “evolved”.

                  For the record, you just called Anaheim a whore for selling out for $158,000,000. Not exactly a smooth move on your part.

                  • You can do your own research. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands.

                    I didn’t compare the city to the socialite. I aptly compared your reasoning to the socialite’s, so as to highlight how you ping-pong between attacking the GW deal on principle to attacking it for the amount.

                    • No more time than you, brother! But I’m not going to go digging for something that doesn’t exist. You’re being pretty darn fast and loose with the term policy.

                      Choose your analogies with a little more care. Your neighbors don’t like being called whores. That particular tale is also not appropriate for the 21st century.

                    • “not appropriate”?

                      You’re bothered when one of our commenters uses an oft-told Churchill anecdote, but you’re happy to laugh along with your OJB pals when Vern posts a gratuitous lie that I pay my daughters’ Catholic school tuition with Thai hook-up ads? Wow. Sad to see their turpitude is rubbing off on you.

                    • Well, son, that was a screen shot from your site.

                      I’d hardly call that gratuitous lie.

                      You DO get revenue from the ads on your site, do you not?

                    • I’d hardly call that gratuitous lie.

                      Then I suggest you get your moral compass checked, Ryan – especially when you take such offense at the Churchill anecdote.

                      I have a spot for Google Adsense ads. I’d asked the friend who set it up for me to ensure it would only accept family-friendly ads. Obviously, my friend forgot to do so; I logged in yesterday for the first time ever and made the necessary changes to the settings. Those ads respond to the viewing habits of the reader; I’ve never seen one remotely like the screen shot on OJB. Google Adsense has generated a very little bit of revenue, of which I haven’t collected a penny. And even if I had, it is a lie to claim I’m paying my kids’ tuition with a few bucks from Google Adsense

                      So, yeah – Vern’s claim that is how I pay my daughters’ tuition is a lie. It is a gratuitous lie because there was no reason for him to post it other than a deliberate attempt to harm my reputation – which you know perfectly well. Vern made no attempt to determine the truth of the claim he was making. Plus, there’s the personal sleaziness of him dragging my daughters into his gutter post in a creepy attempt to injure me. I don’t recall ever making any reference to his children; or Cynthia Ward’s; or yours.

                      And none of this offended your finely-tuned moral antenna — at least, not like your Churchill quote. Not only did it not offend you, but you yucked it up with your friend Vern about his involving my kids in his dishonest mud-slinging. So please continue to post comments here, but spare us any more moral posturing.

                    • I HAD decided not to waste any more time on Ryan, but then I saw this exchange.

                      Show some self-respect, Ryan. Show some honesty, some decency. Nelson thinks it’s funny to use someone’s children as part of some grubby, needless character attack, and you laugh with him. What does that say about his soul? What does it say about you that think it is funny and justified?

                    • I don’t recall laughing at anyone’s children being used.

                      My soul is between me and God, sir. Mind your own.

                    • Spare you the moral posturing?

                      Please, Matt.

                      You took money off that ad. That’s on you.

                      Spare yourself.

                      And for the record, that screen shot was from a sterile PC with no browsing history or cookies. So while you might feel a little bit of comfort to your own moral compass based on what you might have been told from your friend– your friend was wrong.

                      Finally, suggesting that was I laughing along with pain extracted from your kids, as you would say, is intellectually dishonest.

                      You ran an ad. You got paid. I’m sure you spend the money.

                      Suck it up.

                    • Boy. I provide you with the truth, and you still prefer the lie. And you’re nasty about it, to boot.

                    • Given your intimate knowledge of the computer used to take the screenshot, I guess we can assume it was you who took the screenshot and sent it to Vern?

                    • I was certainly aware of it before you were.

                      I also made sure it was appropriately vetted.

                      Now if you don’t like the actual truth– that you made a buck off it– why don’t you just issue an apology instead of looking for someone to blame?

                    • You can’t manage a straight yes-or-no as to whether you took the screen shot and sent it to Vern, but you do admit active participation in his slimy, untrue post.

                      The truth, as I said, is I haven’t received a dime from Google Adsense; I cannot help it if you’d rather believe your own lie instead. And it’s not as though I choose the ads, despite your dishonest attempt to impute that responsibility to me.

                      I get that you’re trying to make this about me – but this whole episode is really a reflection on you and Vern and the kind of ugliness you descend to in your partisanship.

                    • Geez, Ryan. You sure have turned into a freaking troll, haven’t you? Sick.

                    • I was directed to the ad, Matt. I provided some advice that was actually designed to protect you.

                      My mistake. This was the second time I stuck my neck out for you.

                      I won’t do it again.

                    • “I was directed to the ad”. What does that mean? Did you take the screenshot or not?

                    • “Tried to protect you” and “stuck my neck out for you”?

                      You’ve made false allegations about me, and persist in making them even after I have corrected you with the truth. You’ve participated in a slimy effort to harm my reputation not only with untrue allegations, but by dragging my kids into that sleazy effort.

                      How exactly are you protecting me, Ryan? Sticking your neck out for someone means to stand up for someone at some risk to yourself. I fail to see how you’ve risked anything, and you certainly haven’t done anything to help me.

                    • What’s it to you, Matt if I did or not? What’s the relevance?

                      I hope you appreciate, but for Vern, you’d still be running that ad. While I understand you don’t like how you received the information, the greater good here came from you correcting the problem.

                      The highroad here is apologizing, saying thank you, and moving on. Not exactly difficult.

                    • “What’s it to you, Matt if I did or not?”

                      Because it’s evidence of the kind of maliciousness I heretofore would not have ascribed to you, Ryan. Your insistence of avoiding answering the question is leading me to conclude it was you who took the screen shot and sent it off to Vern (knowing the kind of thing he’d do with it).

                      “I hope you appreciate, but for Vern, you’d still be running that ad.”

                      Vern’s post was up for several days before I even saw it. A normal person with a sincere intention to be helpful would have sent me an e-mail about it. But you and Vern were sincere only in a twisted desire to try to make me look indecent and imply I was choosing that ad. And you brought my daughters into it.

                      So please stop acting as if you and Vern were doing me a favor. It’s surreal. It’s bent.

                      “The highroad here is apologizing, saying thank you, and moving on.”

                      I can only assume you are directing that advice at yourself and Vern.

                    • Ryan:

                      Matt has thrown some sharp elbows on this blog, and I think he’d be better served by toning it down sometimes. But by and large he’s focused on the issues and the politics. When he writes about people, he leaves their families, work and personal lives out of it.

                      You and your friend Vern crossed a line here. It’s disturbing that instead of going at Matt on the issues, you sink to this. You both should be better than that. You’re the ones who ought to apologize, and pull that post.

                    • Ryan, it seems like you are not denying sending the screen grab to Vern. Google AdSense delivers ads based on what you are or have searched for.

                    • Matt– I took “a” screen shot after a friend of mine forwarded me his/hers. It would be disingenuous for me to say that I did not take “THE” screenshot, but I don’t think that’s the case.

                    • And one more thing, Matt– the notion that I’m participating in some scheme to smear your family because I insisted that a clean screen shot get taken (no cookies,k no history) is unbelievably incoherent.

                    • RJ– I didn’t write, nor did I have anything to do with writing a post. As I recall, it’s part of an open thread. I haven’t even read the whole thing.

                      You’re asking me to do something I have absolutely no authority or influence to do. Not exactly a fair request.

                    • You’re being very disingenuous, Ryan.

                      You’re very free making demands of Matt to apologize, etc., and in the same breath say you cannot ask Vern Nelson to remove a post that is a very low blow and crosses the line. Since you admit to playing a role in Vern’s post, your claim isn’t believable.

                      Neither is your insistence that ad is Matt’s fault. You must not understand how Google Ads work. Website owners embed code in their website. While they can disallow certain categories of ads, they don’t actively select the ones that do appear. Matt already told you he thought his friend had made those adjustments to his Google Ads account. Saying Matt was “running that ad” is extremely misleading.

                      If you were the genuinely helpful soul you say you are, you would have alerted Matt offline. Instead, you took a screenshot and sent it to Vern Nelson so he could try to embarrass Matt. That speaks poorly of you.

                    • Anyone else notice that Ryan stops commenting at the END of the work day, and doesn’t start again until the next work day STARTS?

                    • RJ,

                      I would have GLADLY informed Matt of his website’s behavior personally. I’ve done so in the past.

                      Unfortunately, he’s made it very clear I’m not to contact him. Ever.

                      And again, I didn’t play any role in Vern’s post. I’m going to undertake some super responsibility to intervene on Matt’s behalf.

                      The fact is– it’s his responsibility to ensure the content on his site mirrors his ethical and personal standards.

                      He failed. Was it an honest mistake? Sure.

                    • Unfortunately, he’s made it very clear I’m not to contact him. Ever.

                      Another misrepresentation. One day last August, you were spazzing out over your comments not getting out of moderation quickly enough and you were pelting me with e-mail after e-mail. I eventually asked you to stop e-mailing me. I never said you could never, ever contact me.

                      I didn’t play any role in Vern’s post.

                      You’ve already admitted to playing a role. Here. In your own comments.

                      I’m guessing honesty has a place among your ethical and personal standards; you should ensure the content of your comments mirrors them.

                      And just stop embarrassing yourself by pretending as if you and Vern were acting virtuously.

                    • You sent me a cease and desist letter! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?! That means don’t ever contact you again. Now you’re going to say I’m being disingenuous about it? W-O-W. Even for you. Wow.

                    • That is untrue. Twice I asked you to “Stop e-mailing me.” And you finally sent this weird, long, legalistic reply.

                      Now, I have no interest in carrying on this pointless exchange. I think it is better for everyone if you no longer comment here. I wish you all the best, Ryan.

                    • Ryan, I believe you used the phrase “thaied down” on OJ to play off the ad loking for Thai women to date. If your friend sent you the screen grab, its because he’s searching on topics similar to that. If you saw the same ad on your browers, then you’re looking for it. I am amazed you have no clue how Google ads work and Matt’s right, it doesn’t generate a lot of cash at all.

                      All the same, if you’re running cover for a “friend” who’s obviously looking for something he shouldn’t be or you saw it yourself, time for you to get off your moral high horse. What’s next Ryan? You have an indefensible position here because you thought it’s all on Matt.

                      I wonder Ryan, do you take issue with the ads OC Weekly runs for weed, strip clubs and massage parlors?

                      Just asking.

                    • Dan.

                      You can’t read.

                      No cookies.

                      No web history.

                      Try again.

                    • Ryan writes “And for the record, that screen shot was from a sterile PC with no browsing history or cookies.”

                      An air gapped machine that’s never touched the Internet? Oh but there is a history and cookies the minute it logged onto this blog and Google AdSense only delivers a custom ad based on recent search or a current search. A air gapped machine would deliver NO ad. You keep stepping in it deeper and deeper Ryan. You might want to stop digging.

                      I am not buying the notion the screen grab came from a friend.

                    • I mean really, Dan. Google it. It’s not hard to wipe a cookie or history. Six year olds do it.

                      Suffice to say, this PC has more sophistication to it to make it “sterile”, but if you don’t understand how to delete a cookie, I’m afraid there’s no hope for you.

                    • Ah deleting browser histories and cookies. Oh I know how to do it but that’s not what you said. But then again, if you look up Thai dating sites on your computer, it’s good that you wipe the history on it so no one catches you. Sorry, that ad never shows up when I go to Matt’s blog. Oddly enough, ads for my clients sometimes do probably because I was just on their website. No t buying your “friend” story Ryan. Couldn’t you come up with a better excuse?

  3. Black tried real hard to sell us out, plain and simple. He never could have done it without a lot of help.

  4. Do you really believe what you’re saying? Black was TRYING to SELL OUT his CLIENT? You really believe that?

  5. Do you really believe what you’re saying? Black was TRYING to SELL OUT his CLIENT? You really believe that?

    • He did sell out his client. He gave away concessions worth millions at got exactly ZERO in return.

      • Wrong. You don’t like that deal. You think he should have negotiated a different deal that would have, in your opinion, been better. But stop equating your opinion with fact, Ryan. It was a good deal for Anaheim. It would be good for Anaheim to develop that city-owned land, and I’m not alone in believing the city shouldn’t be a land developer. You disagree with that. Fine. But we’d get some economic value and activity on that land, and the Angels would have assumed all the risks of development. And the stadium would have been re-built, without taxpayers spending a dime.

        Tait’s behavior during these negotiations has been petulant and counter-productive. He could care less about working with his council colleagues to present a united front for negotiations with the Angels. It’s Tait’s way or the highway. He’d rather toss out a veteran negotiator who understands how to negotiate these kinds of deals because Charles Black had the nerve to publicly disagree with The Mayor Of Anaheim. Let that be a lesson to all city staff and consultants about what happens when you don’t tell Tom Tait what he wants to hear.

        • FACT:

          Angels got a concession worth (I think, here’s opinion, but we can substantiate this) MILLIONS, specifically an extension of their opt out clause.

          FACT:

          Anaheim received NOTHING in exchange.

          That’s a sell out. It has nothing to do with anything else in the MoU, which fortunately for everyone, died a quiet and meaningless death.

          And since you brought it up, the rest of the MoU was absolute garbage. It would have been the most one sided slap of a contract ever issued in the history of Major League Baseball.

          Assuming you’re right about Tait’s behavior– good for him. He SHOULD be petulant and stubborn if his fellow council members have the combined intellectual curiosity and economic intelligence quota of a garden gnat.

          Tom Tait saved Anaheim hundreds of millions of dollars. I don’t really care how he went about doing it– and frankly neither should you.

          • Thanks again for your OPINION. And you can’t say Tait has saved Anaheim anything, because there is no deal on which to base that claim. He HAS made it far more difficult for the Angels to negotiate with the city. You can trace the underlying instability to Tait’s insistence on firing City Manager Tom Wood.

            • The guy who works for the Angels?

              • An attempted character smear from the same Ryan Cantor who has a conniption anytime someone takes a jab at him. You should change your last name to Pot-Meet-Kettle.

                It’s not even an intelligent response.

                Wood was forced out four years ago. Now he’s doing some consulting for the Angels. Are you going to go full-crackpot and claim THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG? Of course you are.

                You think that has relevance, but you’re cool with Tait insisting the city be represented by a Tait donor who has TWO LAWSUITS going against the city? Right. That makes sense. Have the city represented by someone who is suing the city. Only Tait critics can have conflicts.

                • Jeez, all that from a simple question?

                  Touchy touchy.

                  A simple yes would have been appropriate.

                  • Just pointing out the pointlessness of your comment. Thought you’d appreciate being edified. My mistake.

                    • Well it’s just interesting that you highlight the whole genesis of this problem with a guy who works for the Angels.

                      Sorry that you don’t find that a little interesting.

                    • I pointed to Wood’s dismissal as the starting point for the chaos and conflict in Anaheim city government. That Woods is now consulting for the Angles is incidental, contrary to your insinuation, which you are tacitly backing away from.

                    • Oh, did I imply that?

                      I could have sworn you inferred it.

                      But no matter. Clearly there aren’t any other possible connections between those being employed by the Angels and existing/former players in power politics in town.

                      Clearly.

                    • ^^^ That’s what an insinuation looks like, in case you were curious.

      • And let’s remember: Tait now has his way. The city has hired HIS negotiator. If the Angels leave, Tait OWNS it. No more blaming everyone else by the Mayor or Tait apologists like you.

        • No, if the Angels leave, Kris Murray owns it.

          She’s responsible for giving them extra years to find a new home, which was insane.

          That’s on her.

          • Totally predictable response. Tait has laid out that pre-empitve excuse many times, backed up by his echo chamber. it’s chicken position. Tait successfully blows up the Angels MOU. He succeeds in getting his choice for the city’s negotiator. And he’s alienated the Angels, who are most likely wondering who the hell is in charge at City Hall so they know who can and can’t deliver on any deal they agree to.

            Sorry, Ryan: you can’t keep palming the blame off on others. The Mayor got his way. A good leader would figure out he needs at least three votes for whatever deal Aitken gets (assuming he gets one), and stop working so hard to alienate his colleagues. He can lead, or he can throw rocks. Not both.

            • Glad to hear Kris Murray is a piss poor leader who couldn’t piece together three votes to get her ridiculous MoU approved into a final deal.

              Much appreciated for the concession.

              But hey– if the Angels do leave because Tait wouldn’t give away the farm, I’m sure he will absolutely own it. It’ll still be Murray’s fault for giving up Anaheim’s major piece of negotiating leverage, and I’m sure she’ll have a convenient gap in her memory concerning the events surrounding Labor Day 2013.

              Anyway, I really don’t think that relationships in the council chambers are so piss poor that a good deal (really, a good deal) to keep the Angels in town is going to be voted down out of spite. I don’t think you do either.

              • “But hey– if the Angels do leave because Tait wouldn’t give away the farm, I’m sure he will absolutely own it.”

                As if that is the ONLY reason the Angels would leave. “Tom Tait won’t give us the farm, so we are leaving Anaheim.”

                Any bad outcome can only be Murray’s fault. Any good outcome can only be to Tait’s credit. The Angels want the farm and will leave if they don’t get it. Can I have a grown-up to argue with?

                The council majority has already shown they’ll support a good deal. I wish they’d approved an MOU-based deal instead of letting Tait and the VOC. But that would have required stability, continuity and spine in the City Manager’s office.

                Part of the problem is Tait wants veto power over any deal, and just wants his colleagues to rubber stamp whatever he decides is a “good deal.” Give Tait credit: he has a talent for finding a way to pick a fight. Even when he doesn’t need to.

                • Look, when you give away the foundation, you can’t exactly blame the builder if the house falls down.

                  Murray gave away the foundation. Straight up gave it away– so yes, she gets blamed if the house falls down.

                  And if Tait manages to build a half-way livable home, he deserves a freaking parade.

                  • The “foundation” wasn’t given away. That’s a ridiculous assertion.

                    BUT if it were true, then negotiations between the city and the Angels are already doomed to failure. Any deal will be worse than the MOU deal would have been. And so all of the Tait machinations and demands and bomb-throwing you cheer for make no difference. If your claim is true, switching negotiators is pointless.

                    Stop trying to have it both ways, Ryan.

                    • . . . o . . . k . . .

                      A little sad that you don’t really quite get the concession you just made. But I’ll take it.

                    • I’ve read Cantor’s comments and I cant help but wonder why he isn’t blocked. He specializes in distorting and distracting from fact. I honestly wonder at times if he even believes what he says or just likes the sport of trying to spin a topic until it’s unrecognizable

                    • Amen to that, Anaheim Jack.

                    • Hey Jack, speaking of facts . . .

                      I’d LOVE to hear what exactly Anaheim got in exchange for handing the Angels a mighty concession.

                      Maybe I just got so confused by all my spinning I’m so dedicated to– but it’s really hard to miss that giant empty hole where some sort of material benefit was supposed to reside.

                    • Please continue proving my point

                  • Ryan, that is way creepy. Like a stalker.

              • “Glad to hear Kris Murray is a piss poor leader who couldn’t piece together three votes to get her ridiculous MoU approved into a final deal.”

                since Tait if often on the losing end of 4-1 and 3-2 votes, does this mean he’s a “piss poor leader” too Ryan?

              • “Glad to hear Kris Murray is a piss poor leader who couldn’t piece together three votes to get her ridiculous MoU approved into a final deal.”

                since Tait if often on the losing end of 4-1 and 3-2 votes, does this mean he’s a “piss poor leader” too Ryan?

                • That’s for you to decide, Dan.

                  But I’m sure you made up your mind on that irrespective of a vote.

                  Besides, that’s some anonymous commentator’s standard for quality leadership– not mine.

  6. Did Black sell out his client on purpose? I don’t know, do you think that offer of a dollar a year might have been accidental? Was it a typo? Maybe there were supposed to be more zeroes in there, in which case Michael Houston, Marcie Edwards, Paul Emery, Charles Black, Tom Morton, and four of five City Council members (including ONE REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY) MISSED the typo listing only one dollar instead of the market rate where one BEGINS a negotiation! Even if willing to work your way down from there you don’t telegraph that info. While this explains Lucille Kring saying nobody knows where the dollar came from, please explain why they all insisted on moving forward with a vote once the one dollar was brought to their attention, rather than back the Mayor’s motion to postpone the vote until the 24th so the public could review info we had NOT been given, and the City could FIX the one dollar that was apparently not supposed to be there?

    If the dollar a year offer was intentional, then you answered the question. What I want to know is what you believe is the benefit to taxpayers for offering our real estate for ONE DOLLAR per year as an opening bid, and putting the potential tax revenues on the table as well, leaving taxpayers with the idea we will forfeit the market rate for the land AND the pennies on the dollar in taxes as well. Tell me again where is the value? Tell me that while I sell your car, without telling you in advance, and fail to split the price with you. If the buyer uses the car to drive to his new job, is his contribution to the local economy price enough to offset your loss on the car?

    So here is the big question, Anaheimster. We sat there September 3 and heard Charles Black, City staff, and four of five Council members make the claim that the MOUs were NOT the final deal, that what was negotiated could be completely inconsistent with the MOUs, and lots of negotiation was expected. So why blame Tait for BELIEVING WHAT BLACK AND STAFF TOLD HIM? He heard this was not the end deal, we could get more out of it, he was on board for getting more out of it. This is wrong….how?

    Or was that not true? Were the MOUs really the deal, the insiders expected to come back with final documents that looked just like the MOUs and thus Tait should have sat down and shut up? Is that the real scenario?

    And if the Council was so afraid Tait was screwing up the deal, THEY HAD FOUR VOTES and were capable of approving Contracts exactly matching the MOUs, riding up and over Tait’s lifeless body as they do with pretty much every other issue, even when the public shows up demanding they not do so. Public opinion does not seem to be a factor in their decision making process. Did Tait mysteriously force his colleagues to not vote to make permanent that set of MOUs as a final contract? I wonder how we was unable to perform that same parlor trick at any other time in his administration?

    I look forward to your answers, Anaheimster.

    • Just out of curiosity, how many times have you participated in multi-million dollar land use negotiations? Do you have an extensive background in public financing? Is your advanced degree in public admin/policy or planning? Could it be that you are distorting the facts to fit a political objective? Could Tait be doing that? Does this make you and Tait no different than Ryan and his absurd commentary above?

      I look forward to your answers.

      • Uh Jack, what makes you think this was SUPPOSED to be about a land use issue? From Murray’s first mention of the issue in October 2012, to the public notice in March 2013, and through August 2013, the ONLY information offered to the public was the negotiation for the STADIUM with THE TEAM. The LAND USE issue of PCI developing the Stadium District could not legally have been authorized by Council, as it was not on the Agenda for Closed Session discussion. So who told Houston to hire Black to throw in the land the Council had not authorized be included, and Houston lacks the legal authority to throw in on his own without his bosses permission? The land use issue was not legally noticed, prior to September 3, when staff asked permission to begin discussing with PCI their development of the land, with Black himself insisting nothing had been negotiated yet. This is how we know it was the opening bid of $1.00 as a starting point, and I don’t need extensive experience in negotiating land deals to know this is not smart business sense to begin anywhere by full market value. And if you follow the OC Cem District agenda (as Anaheimster pretends to but gets info wrong) you know I am deeply involved in multi-million dollar negotiations for land use issues, and WE FOLLOW THE LAW in conducting them.

        Now, who is going to address my concerns here?
        If the dollar was NOT supposed to be the opening bid, why did all of the City staff, their negotiating attorney (who we hired for the expertise to know this sort of thing) and 4 of 5 Council members MISS the typo SAYING CLEARLY one dollar?

        If staff told the Mayor and the public this deal was not final and the end agreement could easily look nothing like the MOUs, why is Tait at fault for taking them at their word and asking for a different deal? And how did Tait’s ONE VOTE suddenly become so all powerful that it prevented the other FOUR from voting over him to approve a final agreement consistent with the MOUs he didn’t agree with? They approved the MOUs over his objections, nothing stopped them from approving a final contract. Stop blaming Tait for the Council majority’s sudden loss of testicular fortitude when they got caught approving ONE DOLLAR a year, saying it was NOT the final deal, then that it was a mistake nobody caught, and all the while refusing to slow down long enough to fix it.

        • If the $1 is a placeholder then Tait throwing a tantrum to have it changed is nothing more than evidence of my point above. Tait, you, Ryan and all affiliated are trying to take benign facts and twist them until they fit your political agenda/view. It’s getting ridiculous at this point, especially when you consider the cost to taxpayers you are racking up in pointless litigation.

          • You didn’t answer me. A placeholder is “amount to be determined through the process of negotiation.” One dollar is the amount used to sell something seen as useless, like an oold house on a lot you want to develop, offering the house for free to anyone willing to move it creates a gift and potential tax issues, you “sell” it for one dollar, it is the traditional symbol for something not of worth.
            That the dollar was used is not in question, it was in the contract, nobody disputes that. If another phrase such as “amount to be determined” should have been used, why did SO MANY PEOPLE miss the chance to FIX IT by accepting Tait’s motion to vote at the September 24 meeting instead? Staff admitted there was no time constraint. WHAT WAS THE HURRY?

            It is your side of the argument that cannot make up your minds what that dollar meant. Either this was the deal and it was a good deal (in your view) and Tait screwed it all up by refusing to be a good soldier and go along…but nobody has explained why Black and company said over and over again that this was NOT the deal, that negotiations could produce something totally different.

            You brought up litigation. Can you tell me what part of the litigation is “pointless?”

            Did the City actually provide the records we are entitled to as citizens and I somehow missed it? Then this would be over in no time flat by simply offered proof or copies showing such disclosure. If they did not turn over the records, and have not shown the court why the records are exempt, then the litigation to enforce the public’s rights to that information is anything by pointless, we have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to those records. You can disagree with my views, but dislike for those requesting records is NOT one of the exemptions allowing a City to deny access.

            If the City violated the Brown Act as we will show, then again the litigation is anything but pointless, this is a huge issue with long range impacts and cannot be done based on a back room deal preventing the public from watching what they were doing! The City had not even tried to deny the violation, their answer is basically the violation should carry no consequences. Convenient.

            That they worked pretty hard to keep the public from seeing their slight of hand is compounded by their refusal to accept our offer to cure and correct, which would have made us go away by providing the missing records, and revoting the agreements after making public the studies we were denied before the September 3 vote. Over in one Council meeting, no litigation, no threat to Moreno’s opt out window which is on the chopping block if we win. Those are some pretty high stakes the City is demanding we play for.

            Consider this scenario, you return from your honeymoon, glowing with fresh memories and a lifetime ahead together, and an envelope from the State of California is waiting in the mailbox, which is freshly painted with your new married people name . The notice says there was a problem with the licensing of the officiant who performed your ceremony, and your marriage may not be legally valid, and it is best to remarry immediately to ensure legal contract between you and your mate. Now do you race for the nearest priest, or Justice of the Peace? Do you see no downside in communicating to the world that you believe so much in this marriage you will do it all over again to be sure? Or do you hire lawyers, dig in, and fight to enforce a marriage contract using every legal maneuver on earth and sucking up years of everyone’s time, while children born into this marriage may or may not have legal legitimacy?

            You can insult me, you can ignore me, you can disagree with me, but you may NOT strip me of my rights as a citizen and I am not about to apologize for enforcing my rights when representatives of my own government try pulling a fast one to keep us from knowing what they are up to. If those records reflect perfectly legal negotiations, why hide them? Why spend all this time and money, potentially endangering the deal with Moreno should CATER win and reverse the 3 year opt out, leaving the team with NO TIME left on the clock to beat that 2016 opt out window? If the City Council is so gung-ho about the deals from that night, why did they refuse to revote them as MOUs to make CATER go away? And they sure were not willing to make them final contracts, which is not Tait’s fault. Try again.

            What part of the litigation is “pointless’?

            • If I took the time to read all that and laid out the perfect case to explain how and why you are wasting taxpayer money, would you care? Would you drop your suits because of what you read here?

              You will probably say yes but we both know that’s not true. You are Ryan both twist everything until it fits your view and there can be no other interpretation. I think Ryan does it for sport, I think you actually believe what you say. Not sure which is worse.

  7. The comment thread is getting too skinny so I’m continuing it here.

    Here is Ryan Cantor commenting on Anaheim Blog on his role in Vern’s sliming of Matt:

    “I insisted that a clean screen shot get taken (no cookies,k no history)”

    “I took “a” screen shot after a friend of mine forwarded me his/hers.”

    “I was directed to the ad, Matt. I provided some advice that was actually designed to protect you.”

    “I also made sure it was appropriately vetted.”

    “And for the record, that screen shot was from a sterile PC with no browsing history or cookies.”

    And Ryan on OJB: “I guess the price for highlighting Matt’s raging hypocrisy is being banned from highlighting anything.”

    After admitting he played a role in helping with Vern’s sleazy post, even detailing what his role and patting himself on the back for the “price” he paid for attacking Matt, Ryan lies and denies he had anything to do with it:

    “And again, I didn’t play any role in Vern’s post.”

    Ryan: when you tell the truth, you don’t have to work so hard keeping your lies straight.

    • Well, you’re a regular Nancy Drew, aren’t you?

      I don’t understand the fascination with my activity, but here you go:

      I didn’t play any role in writing/crafting/suggesting or otherwise helping with Vern’s post. In fact, I didn’t even know it was going up. Not exactly sure why I’m culpable for that, but whatever.

      I did see the original screen shot before it was broader public knowledge. Part of a private conversation included assessing that it was in fact real and not a cut and paste job or some other simple hack, at my insistence. Part of that conversation also included me capturing an image. So whose image is in Vern’s post is really immaterial. I did in fact take one. Is that one mine? I have no idea. Does it matter? No. Why? Because none of you really give a tiny rat’s butt.

      It’s really not that complicated.

    • Anaheimster you haven’t answered. Perhaps the inquiry got stuck in the skinny messages, so I will repost;

      Was the ONE DOLLAR a typo? If so, why did nobody catch it and fix it, when it was brought to their attention? If the ONE DOLLAR was intentional then accept that many think it was a royal rip off and move on, since the MOUs are dead now.

      Were the MOUs supposed to be a final deal? If so, why did Charles Black and City staff repeatedly say they meant nothing, that the final deal could be totally different? If the deal could be different, why is Tait at fault for taking them at their word and asking them to negotiate?

      At what point did the Council majority move to make an MOU based Contract the final deal, and with what sorcery did Tait prevent that vote of the FOUR who outnumbered him?

      Anaheimster, you said; “But we’d get some economic value and activity on that land, and the Angels would have assumed all the risks of development. And the stadium would have been re-built, without taxpayers spending a dime.”

      Please define what “economic value” taxpayers receive. One dollar per year? NO OTHER AMOUNT was memorialized in the document, so your guess that something better would be done had Tait not interfered is conjecture. Moreno derives ALL of the benefit of developing OUR land and we get ONE DOLLAR. If you have some other view of economic benefit I am open to hearing it. Tax revenue represents pennies on the dollar, and staff made it clear that was on the chopping block as well.

      No Moreno was NOT shouldering all of the risk. That agreement meant Moreno held the monopoly on that land, win or lose, for 6 decades, our risk is that we put up the land and he makes a failure of it, but controls it for the next generation, keeping anyone else with a successful plan from getting in there and doing something. In the end he puts up the capital to develop but reaps ALL the rewards (minus ONE DOLLLAR) while we put up the land, paid for over decades with the taxpayer funded bond payments we covered when the City purchased the real estate from farmers to build the Stadium. At the very least what was our opportunity cost on that funding that could have been invested elsewhere? I don’t think you understand “risk” or “benefit.”

      • There have been multiple plans to develop property around the stadium dating back decade (go back to when the Rams left)….the city is not a good developer Cynthia. Moreno developing the land is shouldering the risk to make the developed property successful and he pledged to share profits with the city, which is what the LA Times reported. So he doesn’t reap all the rewards.

        • I’m sorry Dan, but it is time to go interview your attorney (the one with Pedroza’s nuts in her purse as you put it) and ask if what is said to a reporter is legally enforceable, if no signed document reflects the claim. In fact, what we learned in the Convention Center bonds suit is Staff can flat out misrepresent facts DURING A PUBLIC HEARING where one expects some measure of truthfulness, and unless the claims are backed up by a legal document, it’s “too bad so sad” for anyone wanting to enforce the promises made by staff and Council. So you go read the MOUs, there are TWO of them, one is the Stadium District agreement with PCI, the other is the Stadium agreement with the Angels, and you tell me WHERE in those documents anyone says Anaheim gets cut in on the deal, OTHER THAN the ONE DOLLAR you say is meaningless, but represents the ONLY exchange of benefit to Anaheim for the land development rights to Moreno. The two agreements with two separate entities have NO legal connectivity. We learned in the “Los Angeles” lawsuit that “everyone KNEW what we meant by that” has ZERO meaning, the only thing that matters is the written document. Show me our benefit or even stated intent to work toward some benefit outside of the dollar.

          • ….the city is not a good developer Cynthia.”

            I agree with you there, one need only look at ARTIC, the streetcar, downtown’s Alpha, to understand the City should not be in charge of anything bigger than a premium set of Legos. This of course, does not STOP them from dabbling in the real estate development game…

            And Dan, since we have established that the City sucks at development, tell me again why we cheer them on in the Convention Center expansion, that deviated entirely from the initial promised design which underwrote the costs with a four-star hotel, and the dining and shopping options to support patrons of the hotel in their desire for upscale amenities beyond simply a room. (See Frances Noteboom’s frustration for details here.)

            We somehow went from a project the City dropped because they could not build it without at least PARTIAL risk to the taxpayers and the Pringle administration was unwilling to have that boondoggle on HIS final record, but he was only too happy to show it onto Tait’s Mayoral long term record once out of office and collecting money from his client to push ALL of the risk onto the General Fund. The City should not develop the Stadium District, OK I agree. Your answer is to give the deal to someone with even LESS development experience than the City, claiming nobody else has been interested. But the last RFP inviting developers to come build something was back in different economic times, and tied to the football stadium. The answer was NOT to give away the whole enchilada, the answer was to put out an RFP that let Anaheim draw benefits alongside the developer, and Moreno’s parking encumbrances were dealt with in the 1996 Lease, which allows CLEARLY for a parking garage to provide the spaces.

            • I disagree; the Convention Center is an exceptional development and has only gotten better. Have you ever been to Morton’s down the street? A lot of the low end cheap eateries are gone and a lot of nice hotels are springing up. Great food trucks come in during busy conventions. The area around Anaheim Stadium has had a number of plans and washouts. Sometimes, I think you don’t see the same Anaheim that I do and I’m there more often then you think.

              I trust Moreno’s business experience to be able to pull off a development project that is a win for him and the city of Anaheim.

              Lastly, you guys lost your lawsuit against the convention center. You not only lost, you settled so you wouldn’t have to pay back the cost of litigation. yet there’s still a considerable amount of …I’ll say it … bitching about how the city did what they did and whether or not it was legal. Court didn’t see it your way. Move on please.

          • Considering no one ever saw anything from Moreno’s side other than comments in the newspaper, how do you expect his offer to be signed in ink somewhere?

            Moreno has walked away from the table; neither MOU is valid. Aren’t we getting a little worked up over something that is back at square one?

            So when the Angels do leave Anaheim, and take the millions they give to charities in the city and spend it in Tustin or downtown LA (cause Farmer’s Field is done and that site could easily become a baseball stadium), how will Anaheim make up the shortfall?

  8. and ONE MORE Anaheimster…why did you get your knickers in a knot over the Tom Wood question by Ryan?

    “The guy who works for the Angels?” I don’t see the “innuendo” you do. I see an effort to clarify that we are taking about the same guy, because dragging in the former City Manager who was LONG out of office and has no visible tie to the current negotiations is just kind of disconnected. What has Wood got to do with the Angels? He went to work for them, yes, they would be smart to pick up someone with his institutional memory of Anaheim, but you are the only one who thinks pointing that out is in and of itself “innuendo.”
    I see Ryan asking what a long-gone City Manager has to do with current negotiations…what am I missing? And why is it such an emotional trigger button for you?

    BTW, just as with the Angels MOUs, Tait is unable to fire someone single handedly, he needed at least 2 other votes and he got them, and since none of us witnessed guns to their heads you must believe him to have superhuman powers of some sort. Please share.

  9. Am I the only one around here who feels like CATER and it’s crony lawyer are in for a quick payday in the form of a settlement?

    Why in the world wouldn’t a SINGLE city resident other than Ward or Chuchucha put their name behind this thing? No Dr. Jose Moreno, who presumably lives in Anaheim, not Loretta Sanchez, who “represents” us, not the Karcher’s, not St. Joseph’s, NO ONE but one woman, an out of work lawyer and a guy that could not get elected.

    So what is the end game? PAYOUT? how much, to whom and let’s be done with it.

    CATER is nothing mor than the GNATS around the feast!

    Show me five real taxpaying, community minded members and I’ll start listening. Otherwise, this is a money making SCAM.

    • If I knew that Matt wouldn’t spike my comment, as he sometimes does (and yes, Matt, I do keep track — and keep copies) then I would reply here to you and your fellow commenter below. Alas, I can’t be assured that my writing would get published.

      Do go on, though — the indications of the city’s shift from “they have no case!” to “how can we soften them up to settle for less money by anonymously insulting them?,”while ill-mannered, are not entirely unwelcome.

      • (and yes, Matt, I do keep track — and keep copies)

        Good grief. Get a life.

      • California Homeowners association PAC watcher

        Mr. Diamond, as you whine about contributions from the California Homeowners Association PAC has somehow poisoned the well in Brea, Where you pay no property or school tax because you rent, you seem to have forgotten a major contributor to that PAC is no other than Tom Tait and the Tait Family Trust. But you are not a taxpayer in Brea other than the sales tax you pay. Did you take out a business license for your kitchen table law firm?

        • Do you understand that property taxes, paid by the landlord, figure into determining one’s rent the same way that mortgage payments and desired profit margins do? Is this really news to you?

          OK, you are justified in using a pseudonym here — and maybe a padded helmet when you walk down the street.

          Yes, I have paid a business license fee in Brea for every year since I opened my firm. Thanks for asking. And keep on foolishly hating on renters; it just helps my side.

          • California Homeowners PAC watcher

            You don’t pay a dime in local taxes. Your landlord does. you are not a taxpayer by proxy. You lease a service. People who pay a bed tax at hotels pay more local taxes than you do.

            • California Homeowners PAC watcher

              Can you address the fact that your hero Tom Tait and his family trust gave so generously to the PAC you criticize……

  10. Diamond's not a girl's best friend

    Dianond needed legal help from Vanderbilt’s lawyer. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. Even the Democrat Party doesn’t want him around

  11. I brought up legitimate concerns hoping for a real discussion of facts, and being unable to answer the issue of the ONE DOLLAR and what it may or may not have meant, it spins quickly downward into the poo flinging. I tried. Have a good day.

  12. I’m confused by this entire thread of discussion. Kris Murray authors an amendment to protect taxpayers and it gets the three votes needed to pass it and somehow the Tait cacophany breaks open about the Angels MOUs? You people are out of your minds. And how Ryan Cantor can claim that Kris Murray is somehow the sole author of the MOUs is beyond me. She was one member of a council that received them as a recommendation from the city attorney and staff – that vote passed 4-1 I think. It’s lucky Kris Murray wasn’t alive during the Kennedy assassination she would be blamed for that too based on the half wit diatribes from Tait’s supporters. I suspect this backlash has more to do with her opposition to his staffs $100K salary than anything to do with the Angels. You all seriously a need to get a life!

    • 1) The article also includes discussion on selecting a negotiator for the stadium deal. Read beyond the second comma in the title.

      2) I didn’t say Kris Murray is responsible (solely or otherwise) for authoring the MOU. I said she owns responsibility for the Angel’s skipping town, should that unlikely event come to fruition. That has mostly to do with her comments before and after the vote on the MoU, but that’s certainly up for debate. I don’t recall saying she owns responsibility on anything that she hasn’t voted on, so a draw to the grassy knoll is a tad uncalled for.

      3) I don’t think anyone here commented on anyone’s salary.

      • It is a little interesting that no one from the CATER crowd ever thinks a $100k for a part time staffer reporting to the mayor is a problem.

  13. Since you took the time to comment – do you agree that $100K inclusive of a lifetime pension benefit is warranted for part time admin work?

    • It would really be unfair to make that kind of claim without understanding the role’s responsibilities.

      It would also be unfair to make that kind of claim without understanding the pay history for the role.

      Again, WAY off topic.

  14. Suddenly, Ryan has no opinion and is at a loss for words. Dodge!

    Nice try, PC. Ryan will never, ever publicly criticize or disagree with Tait.

    • I actually had words. 39 to be specific.

      I’m sorry you feel that a job description and previous compensation for tenure in role is too much to ask for when considering an appropriate pay scale.

      • You’ve railed against the Council Majority on this issue before, Ryan, but suddenly you need more information to comment? It’s obvious you’re using that as an excuse to avoid the topic, Ryan, because commenting honestly might lead you to diverge from the Tait party line.

        • Down the rabbit hole we go.

          Again, way WAY off topic.

          I don’t recall ever rallying against anyone on the legitimacy of a pay scale.

          I recall rallying against a body that sure looked like it was being vindictive.

          I trust you understand these two things are not the same thing.

  15. That is the definition of a non answer. It’s yes or no – do you agree with $100K for a 30 hour a week administrative job that includes a lifetime defined pension benefit plan? That is more than a teacher, a police officer, a firefighter, city engineer, senior librarian. All experienced and all with degrees and all that work full time providing valuable front line services to residents. Mishal Montgomery by the mayors own admission helps with his programs and schedules him. That is basic administrative work.

    Yes or No Mr. Cantor. Does a political part time aide warrant $100K for part time work?

  16. You are a piece of work. Get it yourself.

    • Why would I do that? I don’t really care.

      Look genius, I’m not exactly sure how you go about qualifying what people should make, but I’m not willing to make a snap judgement based on rumor and innuendo.

      That’s just ignorant.

  17. CaliforniaHomeownerPAC watcher

    30 hours a week for 52 weeks (not counting vacation, sick days and holidays) at $100,000 annually works out to $64/hour plus change. Zenger wished he could get that rate. $64 an hour to get Tait’s coffee, pencil in his appointments and play footsie with Cynthia Ward is quite a bit. Is Montgomery worth a dollar a minute plus change?

  18. So an interesting turn of events in San Diego, with CATER’S favorite money scrounging lawyer, Cory Briggs (no Diamond hasn’t won anything, so he has only COST Brian and Cynthia, and Anaheim $$$), poised to Shakedown the Spano’s:

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/08/chargers-briggs-backers-meet-hotel-tax-initiative/

    Watch as this deal and another in play, changes EVERYTHING for CATER. Do they even still exist or are we too busy funning for State Assembly now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Skip to toolbar