Anaheim, Rams Say Angels Trapped Them

Management of the California Angels baseball team laid a “trap” for unsuspecting Anaheim officials, waiting until the Rams football team was committed to moving to Anaheim Stadium before objecting to the deal.

Lawyers for Anaheim and the Rams made that allegation in final papers filed Tuesday in the long-running battle in which the baseball club is challenging the lucrative deal made to lure the professional football team to Anaheim.

In a lawsuit, the Angels alleged that the planned multimillion-dollar Stadium Center high-rise development planned on a portion of the 146-acre parking lot cannot be built over their objections.

The city gave the Rams development rights as part of the package to lure them from the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to Anaheim.

The city alleged that the Angels and owner Gene Autry hid their objections to the Rams’ deal until all the contracts had been signed. The baseball club “was attempting to lay a trap for Anaheim” from which it would “profit” later, the city said.

The yearlong trial was held before Orange County Superior Court Judge Frank Domenichini. The filings Tuesday complete the paperwork in the case. Domenichini, now in the middle of another trial, is not expected to rule in the Angels case before July.

One of the Angels’ lawyers, Christian F. Dubia, said he is confident the baseball lease will decide the case in the club’s favor.

“We’ve said all along we have a right to rely on the written lease with the city,” Dubia said. “They (the city) have a moral and legal obligation to honor it. What they’re proposing to do violates that lease.”

The city’s brief cites a portion of Autry’s testimony in which he was asked why objections were not voiced earlier to the Rams’ deal.

“I thought . . . as the old cowboy says, ‘Give them enough rope and sooner or later they are going to hang themselves,’ ” Autry replied, according to the city’s brief.

Autry has long complained that the city “tried to sell the same horse twice”--his characterization of conflicting promises by the city to lure first the Angels, then the Rams.

Asked about the Autry quote in the city’s papers, Dubia said it was “absolutely taken out of context.”

The baseball clubs’ brief, filed earlier this year, highlighted testimony by Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth that the Rams’ parking lot development plans would badly hurt the baseball franchise. Ueberroth testified that if all building plans go through--potentially requiring the use of parking structures in addition to present surface lots--the stadium would become so unsuited for baseball that it should be “plowed under.”

City lawyers caustically suggested that Ueberroth’s testimony should be overlooked.

“Ueberroth should be forgiven these imperfections in his analysis,” according to the city’s brief. “He is a very busy man, trying to keep Mr. Autry and the other baseball owners happy.”

Two parcels of development are planned on the parking lot. The developer is Anaheim Stadium Associates, a joint venture between a trust for the heirs of the late Rams owner Carroll Rosenbloom and a Boston firm, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes.

No construction has taken place, and the Angels are seeking a court order that would permanently prohibit building.

The first phase is planned for 20 acres along Orangewood Avenue, including four office towers and four parking garages. The $200-million center would be similar to Century City and Rockefeller Center, developers have said.

In a separate brief, the Stadium Associates accused the Angels of fraud, deceit and acting “unconscionably” and “outrageously” in failing to object until the Rams-Anaheim deal was completed.

The city always intended to use the stadium grounds for additional purposes, and, by building the stadium, actually subsidized the Angels from 1964 to 1978, according to the brief.

“Then, for almost five years, (Anaheim Stadium Associates) and the city spent millions of dollars in constructing the stadium expansion and in (development plans),” ASA lawyers contend. “These efforts put the Angels in a position to have the use of 20,000 additional baseball seats--seats with a discounted present net value of over $10 million.”

At the heart of the case is a dispute over the terms of the original 1964 lease between the city and the baseball club. The Angels alleged that they were given the right to veto any changes on the 146-acre parking lot. The city alleged that further development of the area was always the goal, and the Angels asked only that parking for 12,000 vehicles be guaranteed.

The lease itself contains provisions that seem to support both sides. Most of the city’s 100-page brief Tuesday was filled with arguments based on contract and landlord-tenant law.

City lawyers, emphasizing what they portrayed as Autry’s late objections to the Rams deal, suggested two explanations: The baseball club at first agreed, then changed its mind, or “trapped” the city. “The Golden West Baseball Co. (the Angels) wanted to set up Anaheim so it could wring concessions later,” the city alleged in the papers Tuesday.

The Angels’ management put on a “happy face,” voicing no objections to the Rams deal until after contracts had been signed and a major expansion of the stadium to accommodate football was almost complete, according to the city.