Anaheim council hears opposition to hotel subsidy

From The OC Register (with Save Anaheim commentary):

ANAHEIM – Several hours of debate continued late Tuesday night over a revised $158 million bed-tax subsidy to assist the developer of two new luxury hotels at The Shops at Anaheim GardenWalk.

As of 9:30 p.m., the City Council had not reached a decision about the tax incentive, mostly due to the dozens of residents who spoke against the plan. If the plan is approved, developer Bill O'Connell Sr., will receive 70 percent of the project's room taxes from when the first hotel opens in 2016 through 2042, or until he has been paid $158 million. Ten percent of the occupancy taxes generated by the anticipated four-star-caliber hotels would be placed in the city's coffers, while the remaining 20 percent would pay off bonds that funded improvements to Anaheim's resort district in 1997.

"Handing over $158 million is not only unfair to other hotel operators that are paying the bed tax, it is especially unfair to the residents of Anaheim," Rick Skinner of Anaheim told the council during public comment.

Other opponents, such as Yesenia Rojas of Anaheim, said any bed-tax revenues raised by the two hotels should be spent on helping the residents of Anna Drive, where a police-involved shooting last summer sparked days of unrest downtown.

"We have been told there are not enough community programs to help our Anna Drive neighborhood, but you have $158 million of our money to give away without helping out the poorest area of Anaheim," Rojas told the council.

An Orange County Superior Court judge ruled in December that the council violated the state's open-meeting law when it narrowly approved a $158 million subsidy that would have allowed the GardenWalk hotel developer to keep 80 percent of the project's bed taxes for up to 15 years, with the remaining 20 percent going toward the resort-bond debt and nothing set aside for the city's general budget.

"I would not have voted for it last year, but this plan is different," Anaheim City Councilwoman Lucille Kring said. How is this plan different? It is the same $158 million GIVEAWAY with no community benefits.

O'Connell and city staffers said the subsidy is needed so that Anaheim can compete with surrounding cities that lure high-spending tourists wanting to stay in luxury hotels.

"The people who are opposed to this act like the city is writing a check to me," said O'Connell, who plans on spending $283 million to build the hotels. That is a lie Mr. O'Connell. The City of Anaheim will write a check over the duration of the agreement directly to you.

"This is a completely different plan that I believe is win-win for the project and the city because no revenue is coming out of this until the hotels get built," O'Connell said. "We want to move forward, build these hotels, create some jobs and generate some revenue for the city." This is the same plan Mr. O'Connell.

Mayor Tait's message to Anaheim residents

This robo call went out today from Mayor Tom Tait:

At tomorrow's City Council meeting, special interests and lobbyists are returning to ask taxpayers to subsidize two luxury hotels.  If passed, our city will be forced to pay one developer 158 million dollars over the next 29 years, taking away money meant for vital city services such as police, fire protection and libraries.   If you oppose this as I do, please call City Hall at 

714-765-5247

to express your views.  Thank you.  My committee Tom Tait for Mayor 2014 has paid for this call.

GardenWalk Hotel HISTORY: $158 million Giveaway RETURNS

Next Tuesday, May 14th the city council majority led by Kris Murray is going to try and reinstate this outrageous giveaway. Please take the next 6 minutes to view the video below from the initial council vote in January 2012.

Check back daily for updates on the upcoming reinstatement of the $158 million GardenWalk Hotel GIVEAWAY scheduled for this Tuesday, April 30th.

Panel: Anaheim voters should decide on council districts

From the OC Register (pay special attention to Eastman's idiotic quote at the bottom):

ANAHEIM – Voters should be asked whether Anaheim is carved into City Council districts as a way to ensure better representation of minority communities, according to a draft report set for consideration Thursday night.

Gail Eastman - "The more issues we put on the ballot, the more people will get confused."

Gail Eastman -

"The more issues we put on the ballot, the more people will get confused."

Additionally, the City Council should be expanded from five members to six or eight with an at-large mayor, according to preliminary recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections and Community Involvement.

Palm trees frame Anaheim City Hall. The city is considering making major changes as to how the City Council is elected.

The 11-member panel was formed in the wake of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed last June, alleging that the city's longstanding system of electing five at-large council members violates the state's Voting Rights Act.

The committee is expected to issue its final recommendations Thursday and present the findings May 31 to the Anaheim City Council. From there, the City Council could ultimately decide whether to put any proposed changes onto a citywide ballot.

"The fundamental question of how we are to be governed should be put to the ballot," said Mayor Tom Tait.

"I'm pleased that the draft report affirms my previous proposal that the best way to determine whether we should have districts is to simply ask the citizens of Anaheim," Tait said. "Who better to decide than the people who live here?"

Along with districts and council size, the committee is expected to consider whether the city should work with community leaders to drum up voter registration, hold more neighborhood council meetings and change the time that City Council meetings are held from 5 p.m. to 6:30.

An Orange County Superior Court judge is expected to rule in July on the ACLU's lawsuit, which alleges that Latinos are shut out of Anaheim's city elections. In the meantime, records show that the city has spent more than $400,000 in legal fees fighting the lawsuit and an additional $35,000 to operate the citizen's commission.

"It's expensive to maintain the lawsuit, but we also need to look at how much it would cost to expand the City Council," Councilwoman Gail Eastman said. "I don't know how we could physically expand the council to eight people in the Chamber. The more issues we put on the ballot, the more people will get confused."

The Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections and Community Involvement will hold its final meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday in the Anaheim City Council's Chamber, at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray needs to go!

From the New Anaheim blog:

Last week’s big story in Orange County politics was the meltdown at Anaheim’s City Council meeting — normally taciturn Mayor Tom Tait waited until the end of the meeting to clean Councilwoman Kris Murray’s clock.  The You Tube video is here.

Tait’s specific target was Murray’s OC Register guest column from 24 April: Let process play out on Anaheim’s elections (outside Paywall here).  On apparently bad legal advice (sources she won’t reveal), or with deliberate intent to deceive (surprising few), Murray misstated a number of facts regarding the noticing of a future election to decide on District-based versus City-wide (at large) Council representation for the city.  She accused Tait of violating “state law”.  Per the union-funded Voice of OC,

…after the meeting, Murray declined to identify the sources of her legal opinions. She declined to comment further on the matter.  ACLU attorney Bardis Vakili sided with Tait and said Murray’s reading of the law is incorrect.

Tait’s response was in today’s Register Commentary section: Anaheim elections (outside Paywall here).  It’s also important, and concerning, that the Register’s not run even one story on this drama which could drastically impact the future of the OC’s most well-known, nationally famous tourist and convention destination.

Read the full story here:

http://newanaheim.com/2013/05/05/anaheim-councilwoman-kris-murray-needs-to-go/#more-769

Mayor Tait sets the record straight regarding Kris Murray's Register editorial

Read the transcript below after watching this must see video.

The City of Anaheim is currently engaged in a lawsuit regarding the issue of whether to continue electing leaders at large, or whether we will enact district elections. Last Thursday, Councilmember Murray wrote an editorial in the Orange County Register, which misled the people of Anaheim by sharing information about this issue that was inaccurate and untrue. I will give Councilmember Murray the benefit of the doubt and assume that she did not knowingly lie to the public; instead, I will assume that she simply misread the plain words of a state statute and was reckless with her printed words. As Mayor, I believe it is my duty to speak up when I think the people of Anaheim are not getting accurate information, and I would like to set the record straight. 

Councilmember Murray falsely stated in her editorial “As it turns out, if the Council had approved the ballot initiative proposed last year by Mayor Tait to divide Anaheim into single-member districts, it would have been a violation of State law.”

Councilmember Murray misstated AB 1344 in her editorial to readers of the Orange County Register. The section of AB 1344 that Councilmember Murray refers to is Government Code Section 34458 (b), where it refers to a mandate to hold at least two public hearings. The law is referring specifically to “a proposal to adopt a charter.”

Again, the section is addressing the situation where a general law city proposes to adopt a charter. The statute simply does not apply to a proposal to amend the charter of an existing charter law city.

The intent of the law, which Ms. Murray did point out, was to keep public officials from slipping a new charter past voters without public hearing, as they did in Bell. Anaheim has been a charter city for some time, and the requirements to amend the city charter by placing an initiative on the ballot for a vote, are not the same as the requirements for a brand new charter.

Incidentally, the City of Santa Ana had a charter amendment on the ballot last election and did not conduct two public meetings prior to placing it on the ballot. They complied with the law.

And, if last November we had placed my proposed charter amendment on the ballot for Anaheim voters to decide, we would have also complied with the law.

In falsely stating that the city would have violated state law if the council followed my proposal to put the question of districting to the voters, Councilmember Murray misinformed the Register readers. In referring, by innuendo, that my attempt to place the question on the ballot was in any way similar to the situation in Bell, was not only false, but I believe, an attempt to damage my name and credibility. In addition, Councilmember Murray’s, at best reckless statements, also damaged the professional reputation of our good city staff who facilitated putting the item on the agenda.

I tolerate the personal attacks because frankly, I believe I have the truth on my side. I am not here to be popular or even particularly liked. I am up here to do the right thing for the people of Anaheim.

But I very much care when someone elected to public office uses the media access granted to them based on their position as a public servant, and then abuses that access by sharing falsehoods to the people they are sworn to govern.

I believe that Councilmember Murray needs to submit a retraction in the Register to set the record straight.

Comments on the $319 million Disney Streetcar

Here are some comments folks left on an OC Register story that ran awhile back:

..and guess who got that contract? Hill international is the employer of Steven Albert Chavez Lodge, in fact lodge is the Hill staffer responsible for first coping this project, and therefore in line for the 1% finders fee written into his employment contract. I have the docs if anyone wants them.

That doesnt sound very transparent...my city gets 3 bids and lists them on the Council meeting agenda, and chooses the lowest bidder, that way everyone can see whats going on and make remarks at the city council meeting if they want.

The very expensive light rail system here in Phoenix has been a HUGE failure. Nobody pays to ride, as there is an "honor system" in place. The homeless occupy most seats. There have been many incidents of fights etc AND many, many accidents. Only a trackless system should be considered.

All the money is coming from federal and county funds so far. So even if you don't live in Anaheim, you're paying for this.

What dolts. Obviously, they have no memory of the streetcars in Los Angeles, and how they jammed up traffic. And that was on streets wider than Katella! It will be the height of stupidity if the council tries to suck up to the "resort district" in this manner.

319 million dollars for a 3.2 mile trip. One word. Ridiculous. Serves no purpose whatsoever. Add a few more ART buses, there's no need for that kind of expenditure.

Well they can't solve the gang problem so build a street car system so the gangs don't have to use the bike paths.....

Tom Tait- lone voice in the wilderness of fiscal sanity.

That man could be the future of the Republican Party. He certainly could be the best mayor we've ever had. The way he has handled crises in this city is admirable, to say the least. The GOP needs to turn its head back to OC and see what one of its own is doing.

Maybe the voters should have paid close attention to who was running for council and who was backing them before they voted this past November 6th. The City Council will still only have two sane voices looking out for the citizen-taxpayers after this election. This City is in BIG Financial trouble, folks. This is only the beginning

Once again the city council of anaheim has failed. where is all of the money going to come from? are those people arrogent enough to believe the citizens will pass a bond to pay for it? a lot of buses and other forms of transportation could be purchased for 9.6 mil. many of the city streets are still in dire need of repair and 9.6 mil has just been flushed.

No, you are missing the point, Jim- "...guess who got that contract? Hill international is the employer of Steven Albert Chavez Lodge, in fact lodge is the Hill staffer responsible for first coping this project, and therefore in line for the 1% finders fee written into his employment contract." This is taxpayer money and cronyism runs rampant with it. 

Read the full article here:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/million-377705-project-city.html

Anaheim Police only solve 43% of violent crimes

From The Orange Juice Blog:

Curt Pringle

Curt Pringle

This morning’s Orange County Register features a fine investigative piece by new reporter Keegan Kyle reporting that the Anaheim Police Department may not only have one of the more dismal records in the State for solving crime, but they appear to have created an accountability system that covers over those numbers when reporting to the City Council and the public.  

So much for that transparency they claim is good enough that it makes civilian oversight unnecessary.

The investigative piece spreads over the entire first half of the Register’s Local section, and frankly justifies every nickel I pay for my subscription.

Read the full story here:

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/04/the-register-blows-the-lid-off-more-dirty-secrets-of-the-anaheim-police/

Mayor Tait calls Pringle's robocall "untruthful"

From The OC Register:

ANAHEIM – Anaheim's former mayor took a public swipe against his successor's effort to establish an independent, civilian-based review board to oversee the police department.

Curt Pringle

Curt Pringle

In a robocall blasted to about 70,000 Anaheim households last weekend, Curt Pringle said that the city was "at a crossroads" and accused Mayor Tom Tait of "pursuing a terrible plan" to create a commission comprised of residents charged with reviewing policies and allegations of misconduct within the Anaheim Police Department.

"I don't believe these civilian oversight boards enhance the ability to protect the citizenry and only create a political layer on top of another political layer," Pringle, a lobbyist who served two terms as Anaheim's mayor from 2002 to 2010, said of his reason for recording the message sponsored by the Anaheim Police Association.

"You have an elected city council who should know what's happening in their city when it comes to police issues," Pringle said. "You don't need activists or politically connected people on a police review board."

Tait said he found Pringle's remarks to be "deeply disappointing."

Establishing guidelines

Tait raised the idea of creating a citizen review board in the wake of two officer-involved shootings last July, which sparked several days of civil unrest. There have been at least 37 police-involved shootings in Anaheim over the past decade, 21 of which were fatal, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

City Manager Bob Wingenroth is in the process of drafting an ordinance outlining the duties of the proposed civilian panel and how its members would be appointed. It's unclear when the proposal will come before the City Council.

"Aside from being untruthful, Mr. Pringle's comments only hurt our effort to bring the city together and heal from the events of this past summer," Tait said. "Transparency is good for any organization and it is essential for building trust, which is the foundation of effective law enforcement and community policing."

The Anaheim Police Association has issued two robocalls expressing its strong opposition to the oversight panel. The union, which represents about 350 Anaheim police officers, spent about $25,000 to record and deliver the latest telephone message.

For now, Anaheim Police Department conducts internal reviews of complaints, while the Orange County District Attorney's Office investigates criminal culpability in police-involved shootings, said Kerry Condon, president of the Anaheim Police Association. Additionally, the Office of Independent Review -- a panel of retired law enforcement officials and attorneys -- conduct annual audits of the police department's actions.

Citizen involvement

Condon said he believes those measures are sufficient and said that "no good change" can come from a citizen review board.

"Those types of things are usually implemented in police departments that have serious problems like corruption and an inability to control officers," Condon said. "Anaheim does not fall into that category in any way, in my opinion."

About 20 police agencies across California have a civilian oversight committee, according to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, an Indianapolis-based nonprofit group working to improve accountability of police departments.

"The benefit is having a police commission is that you have citizens who are not involved in any way in law enforcement to provide another layer of oversight for internal controls," said Richard Tefank, executive director of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, a five-member civilian panel established during the 1920s to oversee the LAPD.

"Internal department reviews are fine, but the District Attorney's Office only determines whether any crimes are committed," Tefank said. "A citizen-based panel can recommend policies to the City Council and then determine whether an officer violated those policies, which is a whole different role

Kindness is Not Weakness

By Cynthia Ward

The leader of the pack in trying to elevate the tone of civility is Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait. His response to vicious attacks sets a standard for others to follow. We have no clue how much venom he faces, day after day. I do not know if I could show up at City Hall and push the button for the 7th floor, knowing what waits for me when the doors open. I am very glad he does it.

Mayor Tom Tait

Mayor Tom Tait

Many evil things have been said about the man, primarily by those too gutless to put their names on their posts at other websites, curiously funded by unnamed sources. Their accusations of a Mayor run amuck with a staff equally as out of control are unfounded, and baseless. One of these “writers” has taken great joy in filling my email inbox with venom aimed at the Mayor, and aimed at me for defending the Mayor. The charge is that if I would simply look into some of these allegations with an open mind I would see who he really is. The most recent accusations about the Mayor were particularly brutal, and needing to back them off I ran a Public Records Request, asking for information relating to events brought up by someone clearly immersed in the anti-Tait KoolAid. If there was anything to the allegations it would come out with these records.

Well the records came back, primarily emails, a few City documents, enough to tell the tale of who is creating problems at City Hall and who is not. On 3 different occasions that Tait had been blamed for bad behavior, I could clearly see the fault was not with him, nor was it with his staff. In pushing me to investigate, the Flying Monkeys inadvertently exposed the exact opposite.

News of Public Records Requests travels like wildfire, and before long Mayor Tait checked in with me. Now keep in mind at this point he had to know I was in possession of documents that could give a very bad time to people who had thrown immense resources into tormenting the man. It would be easy to let me print, to encourage me to print.  A lesser man would have sent me those messages himself, knowing they would reveal some incredibly bad behavior from those intent on his demise.

Anaheim is fortunate that Tom Tait is not a lesser man.

Instead he asked me not to escalate the battle. The information was not linked to anything that makes a difference to the average taxpayer, money was not misspent, there was no public good to be had in outing those who see him as the enemy. Could I please help him keep the peace?

The gentlemanly gesture from Tait is more than the other side deserves. But because it is Tait, because I can see how hard he works to be the diplomat, I will respect his request.  I am sure he would have preferred that I not say anything at all. But I want them to know that he covered for them. I want them to know that they owe him one. Big.

Read the full story here:

http://thinkforyourselfoc.com/2013/03/kindness-is-not-weakness/

Cutting Anaheim’s Mayor off at the knees

By Cynthia Ward:

At Tuesday night’s Anaheim City Council meeting, observers saw what I truly believe to be the last gasp of civility at City Hall for the remainder of the current Council administration.  That sounds pretty melodramatic, I know.  If we managed to get through the $158 million hotel giveaway, a $319 million streetcar for Disneyland patrons, civil unrest, a Brown Act lawsuit tied to the hotel giveaway, and another lawsuit tied to District voting, what could possibly be so big that it spells the end of the ability to function as an elected body?

$30,000.

Huh?

Read the full article here:

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/03/cutting-anaheims-mayor-off-at-the-knees/

See video below:

A Man Apart

By The Voice of OC:

In a stark display of how politically isolated Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait has become, the City Council majority Tuesday night refused to increase funding for the mayor's policy aid position, leaving him without any staff to help with the daily work that faces his office.

Tait had requested that his office budget be increased by $30,000 so his policy aide, Mishal Montgomery, could be compensated through the end of the fiscal year in June. As it stands, the money to pay her ran out last month.

Tait made a motion to approve the increase, but none of his colleagues would second it. The mayor was visibly angry and loudly pounded his gavel when Councilman Jordan Brandman interrupted him to say the motion had died.

Tom and Julie Tait

Tom and Julie Tait

“I thought I'd seen it all, but apparently not,” Tait said.

Last June, the council majority -- then consisting of Kris Murray, Gail Eastman and former Councilman Harry Sidhu -- slashed the aide's maximum allowable compensation from $100,000 to $60,000, allocating the revenue saved for weekly computer and job training class at the Ponderosa Elementary School library.

The compensation cut, which brought Tait's aide budget to the same level as the other council members, was the only adjustment council members had made when approving the city's nearly $1.2 billion total budget.

The action was widely seen by City Hall watchers as political retribution for Tait's opposition to decisions the council-majority had favored and the mayor's numerous attempts to undo a controversial, $158-million tax subsidy for a hotel developer who helped finance council members' election campaigns.

Murray, nonetheless, had at the time said the cut wasn't personal. “My look was at the budget. Sixty thousand dollars for 30 hours a week is more than ample,” she had said.

Before Tait made his motion, he presented slides showing the staff and compensation for mayors of other cities. All had more staff members and had higher compensation. For example, in Riverside, a city smaller than Anaheim, the mayor has six staff members, with the highest compensated at $106,000 annually, according to Tait's slide.

Montgomery also had a $100,000 budget during the eight years she was aide to former Mayor Curt Pringle, a lobbyist who now represents many business interests in the city and is close to the council-majority.

Pringle and Tait, once friends, became political opponents after Tait won the mayor's race in 2010.

Read the full article here:

http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_0a28ad28-8697-11e2-883a-001a4bcf887a.html

Pettiness reins at Anaheim City Hall

At last nights Anaheim City Council meeting, the council majority and Lucille Kring refused to even consider extending Mayor Tait's council assistant budget. A budget they slashed by $40,000 in retaliation for his positions on the $158 million GardenWalk Hotel giveaway. Now the Mayor of the 10th largest city in CA has no staff.

Lucille Kring's campaign was heavily supported by Mayor Tait with additional support from Save Anaheim. Kring has also recently changed her positions on districting.

Ron and Lucille Kring

Ron and Lucille Kring

APA's Kerry Condon takes aim at Mayor Tait

At yesterdays city council meeting, APA President Kerry Condon attacked Mayor Tom Tait.

See video below:

During his speech he also lashed out at critics of the police department stating "I am here to oppose those who tell blatant lies about our police officers . . . ." Pot meet kettle Mr. Kerry Condon. You stood before the council and misrepresented the facts aka lied regarding Mayor Tait. Blaming him for economic issues, low police numbers, stated he enacts bad policy, and hurts public safety. Mr. Kerry Condon might want to look at Curt Pringle's mismanagement of city funds that Mayor Tait inherited, the policies of the majority that consistently undermine TOT revenues (that funds police officers) in favor of their developer pals, and so on.

You're an embarrassment to the Anaheim Police Department. I hope under oath you don't lie like you did tonight in front of the entire City of Anaheim.

A Tale of Two Anaheims

By The Voice of OC:

When Anaheim protesters clashed with police in a downtown riot last year after a string of fatal police shootings, it became clear to many residents that there are two Anaheims.

One city boasts world-class sports venues, Disneyland's magic kingdom and an affluent, mostly white bedroom community perched atop the tumbling hills that form the city's Eastern frontier.

The other side of Anaheim is a collection of neglected neighborhoods sprawled over the city's flat-lands. A mainly working-class Latino community scraping by with low-wage jobs, fearful of aggressive police officers and gangs, and stunted by a bleak sense that the city's political elite cares little for their plight.

On Tuesday, Mayor Tom Tait confronted the two Anaheim’s during the mayor's annual State of The City address.

As is city tradition, the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce presented Monday's luncheon event, and most attendees were business leaders, not ordinary residents.

Below a gilded stage and a vast blue curtain, the city's powerbrokers dined on seasoned chicken and chocolate pudding deserts served in skinny glasses.

Tait’s message was harder to swallow.

“It is important for our reputation that there not be two Anaheims,” said Tait, in reference to the media storm last summer that placed the city's strife on an international stage. “But even more important, on a human level, it's just not right.”

Yet creating one prosperous city won’t be easy.

Read the full story here:"

http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_north/anaheim/article_4b6542d2-703b-11e2-b60e-001a4bcf887a.html

More Anti-Anaheim blog baloney. . . .

Today, the Anti-Anaheim blog has new post out, written supposedly by an anonymous contributor named Anaheim Insider.

"At the November 13, 2012 Anaheim City Council meeting, the council wanted to form an ad hoc committee to oversee the city’s negotiations with the Angels regarding an extension on their lease. The council majority planned to name Councilmember Gail Eastman and Councilmember Kris Murray to the ad hoc committee as Mayor Tom Tait had previously claimed a potential conflict of interest because he owned property across from Angels Stadium and his engineering business operated out of a neighboring building.

This is where it gets interesting. In response to an inquiry about the Mayor’s conflict, the Anaheim City Council minutes report what happened next:

“At the request of the Mayor, the City Attorney reported that Mayor Tait had previously secured an advice letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission indicating … he would not have a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act.”

It has been a couple of months since the city attorney made this interpretation of the FPPC conflict letter. The letter was never made available.

But just last week the FPPC letter was made public. The letter, addressed a question posed by the City Attorney, and this is what was asked:

“May Mayor Tait take part in decisions concerning the city-owned Angel Stadium property if he transfers his ownership interest in real property within 500 feet of the Angel Stadium property to his adult, non-dependent children and amends the lease relating to his leasehold interest in a portion of the same property to prohibit him from profiting from any sublease, assignment or transfer of that leasehold?”

So that was the question asked by the City Attorney about Mayor Tait’s conflicts. And here is the FPPC’s answer:

“By transferring his entire ownership interest in 2130 Orangewood LLC, Mayor Tait will no longer have a disqualifying economic interest in the two parcels of real property owned by that entity. However, Mayor Tait will still have an economic interest in the leasehold which will be directly involved in any governmental decisions involving Angel Stadium.”

“Mayor Tait may not make, participate in making, or influence the decisions unless he can (rebut 5 factors) and determine there is no reasonably foreseeable material financial effects on any other economic interest he may have.”

Apparently the city attorney felt she could interpret all of this as – “Mayor Tait has no conflict.”

(Read the FPPC conflict letter for yourself. You can get a copy of the advice letter from the FFPC. The file number of this advice letter is # A-12-063, dated May 22, 2012.)

It is clear that the city attorney did not to give accurate legal advice. But the real question is whether she should have been fired or allowed to resign for this breach?

The mayor and councilmembers rely on the City Attorney for expert legal advice. When he or she gives poor, unsound or incomplete advice, it is the mayor and councilmembers relying on it who bear the consequences, legal as well as to their reputations."

The problem is Anaheim Insider deliberately left out key segments of the FPPC e-mail response. Here is the whole response (the portion Anaheim Insider left out in bold):

By transferring his entire ownership interest in 2130 Orangewood LLC, Mayor Tait will no longer have a disqualifying economic interest in the two parcels of real property owned by that entity. However, Mayor Tait will still have an economic interest in the leasehold which will be directly involved in any governmental decisions involving Angel Stadium. His proposed amendment to the lease should provide sufficient proof that it is not reasonably foreseeable that governmental decisions affecting Angel Stadium will have any effect on the value of Mayor Tait's right to sublease the real property, either positively or negatively, as set forth in regulation 18705.2(2)(C). 

Then Anaheim Insider goes on to quote another portion of the letter with portions missing:

This notwithstanding, Mayor Tait may not make, participate in making, or influence the decisions unless he can (1) rebut the presumption of materiality by showing that it is not reasonably foreseeable the decisions will have any financial effect on any of the remaining factors enumerated in Regulation 18705.2(a)(2)(A)-(E) with respect to his leasehold interest, and (2) determine that there will be no reasonably foreseeable material financial effects on any other economic interests he may have. 

So if Mayor Tait did what Talley suggested:

1. transfer ownership

2. amends the leasehold

then Mayor Tait has no conflict and he can participate any negotiations related to Angel Stadium. Once again, the Anti-Anaheim blog insinuates wrong doing and maligns the character of our former City Attorney Cristina Talley with no merits.