Lucille Kring: “Mayor Tait Seems Bent on Driving the Angels Out”

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring

Anaheim Insider here.

The gloves are really off now.

Lucille Kring unleashed a broadside on Friday against Tom Tait after the Angels informed the City they were terminating negotiations on the MOU. She told the LA Times:

“Mayor Tait seems bent on driving the Angels out in order to demolish the stadium and make a quick buck on more generic development. I wonder if the residents of Brooklyn are glad that they have high-density apartments instead of Ebbets Field and the Dodgers.”

She followed up by blasting out an e-mail blasting Tait for alienating the Angels:

Enough is Enough!

A Failure of Leadership

Dear ___,

Yesterday the City of Anaheim received a letter from the American League Division Champion Angels Baseball organization saying that they were electing to terminate the Stadium Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as well as negotiations with the City of Anaheim. (View Letter)
l am at a loss to express my disappointment other than to say that this represents a total lack of leadership on the part of our current Mayor, Tom Tait.

As the Angels’ letter points out, the MOU was meant to be a starting point in the negotiations process. And yet, time and time again I have listened to the Mayor tell the media and our residents misleading information.

Mayor Tait has characterized the MOU as everything from a nefarious plot to bilk the City out of money to a sneaky attempt to giveaway the City’s biggest asset. Is it any wonder the Angels no longer want to continue this process?

For shame Mr. Mayor, for shame.

One city seems more than willing to welcome the team that Tait forgot. On Tuesday the City of Tustin will discuss luring our Angels to their city during a special Closed Session meeting.

While the Angels have been compiling the best record in baseball, there has been no “kindness” for our beloved team at home. Tom Tait has willfully ignored expert advice, belittled our professional city staff and, more importantly, failed to negotiate in good faith. This is not what our City needs.
Enough is enough!
If you agree with me that the Angels are an important part of our City’s heritage and that Keeping the Angels is vital to maintaining Anaheim’s unique character, I urge you to do two things:

1. Contact The Mayor Now
2. Vote for a New Mayor Nov. 4

God Bless Anaheim and the Angels!
Councilwoman Lucille Kring
City of Anaheim

Before any Taitbots come unglued over the tough rhetoric, they should remember their man has been blasting Kring and the rest of his colleagues as tools of special interests for the better part of two years now.

Lucille Kring is correct that Tait’s failed leadership has brought us to this point. he has no ability to bring his council colleagues along, even though their real philosophical differences aren’t that great. Since early 2012, he has actively, unnecessarily alienated his council colleagues. He publicly supported an OCEA-funded campaign condemning them as “giving away” tax money to special interests and being uncaring about the needs of average Anaheim residents. His council assistant actively works to embarrass his colleagues, coordinating with the Voice of OC to generate negative coverage of  his colleagues and his close political allies harass them.  True, there has been tit-for-tat, but Tait initiated and perpetuates this intra-council strife.

So when the Angels MOU comes up and he disagrees with parts of it, he has no political capital or good will to draw upon to incorporate his input. The smart approach would have been to quietly make his case to colleagues and the Angels, without impugning their motives and integrity. Instead, true to what has become his leadership style, Tait responded by lashing out at his council colleagues, at Arte Moreno and the Angels and anyone who disagrees with his stance. Mayor Tait’s my-way-or-the-highway leadership style is a failure, and the termination of the Angels negotiations is the bitter fruit of his publicly castigating the Angels and the MOU the team agreed to. 

Taitbots understand this is politically damaging to the Mayor and are spinning hard. One of their angles is this now frees the Mayor and Arte Moreno to negotiate a “better deal.” Better for whom? Certainly not the City of Anaheim. Under the MOU framework, the Angels had to pay to upgrade the stadium, and all the risk that goes with investing in a development was carried by the Angels. It was a good deal for the city, which is why the city had proposed it (something which only recently dawned on Ward and the CATER bunch). Any new deal the Angels and Anaheim work out (assuming we don’t lose them to Tustin) will not be as good. 

So dream on, Taitbots. Mayor Tait told Arte Moreno two springs ago that he thought the framework of what became the MOU was a good one. Moreno ultimately agrees to it, and then the Mayor wages a PR campaign against him and the MOU. That’s the kind if thing that negates the trust necessary for the Mayor to successfully negotiate with the Angels does’t exist. I don’t know that Mayor Tait wants the Angels to leave, but if he did he’d have a hard time doing a better job of accomplishing that goal.

49 comments

  1. Quote from Lucille Kring during the last Anaheim Republican Assembly Meeting: “The MOU was a mistake.”

    Well, well. It would appear that Lucy would like to have it both ways. What say you, Insider?

  2. I think I hear more crickets from Tait.

    So just to be clear, his hand picked running mate has to drop out of the race due to spousal abuse claims and Tait has nothing to say. The city defeats Team Tait in court and he has no reply. The Angels announce they are fed up with the city and are ending talks. Tait remains silent.

    Maybe someone can help me here but isn’t that the number one criticism Team Tait launches at Galloway? Diamond/Ward/Mysterious or pretend others, WHERE IS TOM TAIT???

    It’s clear to me Lucille is the only one stepping up to have her voice heard.

  3. Mr. “Anaheim Insider,”

    I suppose it never occurred to Ms. Kring to talk at least two of her council colleagues into going along for the ride? Oh, wait! Murray is already on board, “fighting like Hell.” This means that Kring merely had to convince Eastman or Brandman to go along for the ride. Did she try? If so who chickened out? That’s the one (or two) you should be heaping your scorn on – not the guy who is only one vote out of five.

    That seems a bit like leadership failure on Kring’s part, dosn’t it?

  4. Mr. “Anaheim Insider,”

    I suppose it never occurred to Ms. Kring to talk at least two of her council colleagues into going along for the ride? Oh, wait! Murray is already on board, “fighting like Hell.” This means that Kring merely had to convince Eastman or Brandman to go along for the ride. Did she try? If so who chickened out? That’s the one (or two) you should be heaping your scorn on – not the guy who is only one vote out of five.

    That seems a bit like leadership failure on Kring’s part, dosn’t it?

  5. Has Ms Kring put something on the agenda that has been voted down or is she all talk about nothing? Blaming the Mayor for potentially losing the Angels is ridiculous. There are four other councilmembers who could just vote something thru – the “blame” should be equally shared…or is Ms. Kring just so ignorant about basic city government 101 that she does not understand the process Yikes! She would be a horrible mayor if she doesn’t even understand the law.

  6. Thank you Lucille for standing up and speaking truth. Tait is causing irreparable harm to our city. Vote for Kring!

    • “Tait is causing irreparable harm to our city.”

      Wow! Really? How, exactly? Lucy, Kris and Gail and Jordan each get the same number of votes as Tom – one. And it only takes three to give Moreno whatever he wants not to move. So why didn’t they approve an Angels deal nine long moths ago?

      Were they worried about something?

      • Matthew Cunningham

        “Lucy”? I’ve noticed you and the other Juicebots have a tendency to want to diminish people you dislike by calling them names or manipulating the ones they have. Always a sign of mature and wise intellects.

        • You know you just called us Juicebots. You just did it.

          You want a chainsaw to get that plank out of your eye?

          • Shorthand, Ryan. Notice I didn’t call Zenger “Davey.”

            • Sure, Matt. We can call you Matt, right?

              But, while we’re on the topic, If Ms. Kring actually abhors the name Lucy, I’m happy to stop using it. Everyone deserves the right to be addressed appropriately.

              • Matthew Cunningham

                I’ve never heard anyone call her “Lucy,” ever.

                I’m sure You and Zenger think you’re being clever and funny, but all you guys accomplish is coming off like a couple of insufferable, spiteful know-it-alls.

                • That’s just more name calling, Matt.

                  Not particularly good name calling, either. If you’re going to do it, do it well.

                  • Matthew Cunningham

                    Ryan, I’m not going to get sucked into endless trivial argumentation with you. I have four daughters who either are or were teenagers, and have had enough of that to last a lifetime.

                    You and you OJ pals can leave the OJ behavior at OJ or keep spending time in comment moderation.

                    • Geez, Dad. Relax.

                      Just Fyi, this isn’t trivial argumentation. It’s you calling me a bunch of names and limiting my ability to respond.

                      Sounds like some of that teenage behavior rubbed off on you.

                    • Matthew Cunningham

                      Ryan, you have 661 comments on this blog – far and away the most of anyone. No one is “limiting your ability to respond.” Once in a while I don’t post your comments, like recent ones in which you not-so-subtly compare those who disagree with you to Klan members.

                    • Good job moderating all those.

                      First of all, it was ISIS.

                      Second, it wasn’t a disagreement. It was a response to a personal attack.

                      Third, it was a little dark, but it was funny.

                      Finally, you only moderate those with a contrarian melody to what is otherwise a perfectly harmonious echo chamber.

                      Keep limiting away.

                    • Matthew Cunningham

                      That’s 662, Comment King. Give up the “They’re silencing me!!” routine. It doesn’t wash.

          • And yet Ryan, the question remains unanswered – how is Tait causing “irreparable harm” to Anaheim when he is only one of five votes? Why didn’t the other four make a deal with Moreno nine months ago?

            It’s because at least two of the four got cold feet. But which two? Brandman, Kring, Eastman or Murray herself?

            • They should have, in my opinion. But they didn’t drive staff forcefully enough to make the deal, and let Tait drive the debate and gum up the works. But it is Tait’s behavior that had led to the failure of these negotiations and has the Angels halfway out the door. If you take out of the equation his months of attacks on Moreno, on the Angels, on his colleagues, on staff, and you’d have had an environment in which an agreement would have been reached, IMO. Tait is the author of this situation. No matter how hard the Taitbots push the “they must stop the mayor before he drives out the Angels” spin.

              • I guess I missed all those Tait “attacks” on Moreno, staff, the Angels, his colleagues. Perhaps you can help out with some actual verbatim quotations/examples. I have seen lots of Tait comments about the Angel dealpoints that were (and will be again) right on the money.

                What I haven’t missed is the way this very blog has been used to slander and malign Tait and his family, very decent people from what I can tell, simply because he has reasonably and appropriately questioned dubious aspects of several extremely large municipal obligations.

                I call that responsible leadership that looks out for the welfare of the citizens of my town.

                • Have you ever actually met Tait or anyone that has had to work with him? I know the answer is no or you would have plenty of examples of ‘Tait attacks’

        • Hmm. Rather like calling me as the “Smartest Man in Orange County?”

          How wise. How mature.

  7. Dave, do you have any actual evidence that Moreno is being coached by the Kleptocracy as you wrote over at OJ? I find it hard to believe that Arte Moreno, who doesn’t care about politics, would take marching orders from anyone in Anaheim. You made a claim — prove it.

  8. Ray "Pettibone" Rice

    Dave,

    You are one of three commenters at the OJB, Greg Diamond and Ryan Cantor included who comment regularly on Anaheim.

    How’s that pandering for a million bucks from the county government going?

Leave a Reply

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

*


Skip to toolbar