Advertisement

Officials Not in Sync on Project for ‘Big A’ Area : Development: Doubts expressed on sports-entertainment complex, suggested as a way to keep the Rams in town.

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

City officials are at odds on how fast to proceed with a proposal to build a sports and entertainment center around Anaheim Stadium.

“The city staff wants to move slower than I do,” Mayor Tom Daly said Tuesday about a conceptual plan that would link--possibly by monorail--Anaheim Stadium and Anaheim Arena to Disneyland, the Convention Center and the city’s other tourist attractions.

The plan was floated last week as a way of enticing the Los Angeles Rams to remain in Anaheim. But the plan, which includes a proposal for a massive retail district similar to CityWalk at Universal Studios, would be considered regardless of whether the team stays.

Advertisement

City officials said they want to revitalize the stadium area, but some are hesitant to link the area’s future to negotiations with the Rams.

Some city officials said they do not think the city should explore such concepts until the Rams specify what it will take to keep them in Anaheim. Additionally, some city planners say a decade-old lawsuit over development rights to the stadium parking lot involving the city, the Rams and the California Angels should be settled before the city proceeds on the sports and entertainment complex.

The idea for such a complex, largely pushed by Daly, has created concern among others on the council who fear the expense of trying to accommodate the Rams.

While the entire council supports the sports and entertainment concept, several members have said they are unwilling to subsidize the Rams to keep them.

“I don’t think we should give them a thing,” Councilman Irv Pickler said Tuesday. “As far as I’m concerned, they’re gone.”

The city’s negotiating staff apparently is also hesitant about making any more unsolicited offers to the Rams before the team has outlined what it wants from the city.

Advertisement

Rams officials have told the city they are investigating moving the team for the sake of greater financial opportunities. To that end, they have said that in May they will exercise an escape clause in their stadium lease, which would keep them in Anaheim through the next football season.

For months, Daly has been seeking ways to encourage the Rams to stay and has met with business and political leaders throughout the county to get them to help out.

Daly said that he believes the Rams will stay in the city if the proper incentives can be pieced together, but that he does not want to make unreasonable offers to the team.

How the city might finance the sports and entertainment center has not been addressed, city officials said, though they acknowledge that Anaheim has a good bond rating and could float bonds to cover the project.

Ogden Corp. officials, who backed the Anaheim Arena and are partners in it with the city, said they would not rule out participating in a similar project to build a new football stadium. Ogden has not looked into such a venture, nor have city officials proposed it to them, an Ogden spokesman said.

And while the city is eager to keep the team, the Rams have not said what they want, according to city officials. As a result, the city is worried that by trying to accommodate the Rams, it may risk alienating the other Anaheim Stadium tenant: the Angels.

Advertisement

The two-tenant arrangement has previously led to tension among the city and its sports franchisees and has resulted in a protracted lawsuit among them.

The suit is a potential obstacle in the planning of the sports and entertainment complex.

The legal dispute concerns development rights to a portion of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot that the city granted the Rams as part of the deal to lure them to Anaheim. The Rams organization planned to build high-rise office buildings on the parcel, but the Angels sued to stop the project, claiming that such a development would reduce the number of parking spots and adversely impact them and their fans.

Currently, the case is before a state appeals court, which is expected to decide the matter within the next three months.

Advertisement