Arena Developers Should Listen When Public Talks

If the billionaire developer of the downtown sports arena had accompanied me to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. meeting last week, he would have understood why his proposal has encountered so much trouble.

Philip Anschutz would have found himself in a meeting room packed with more than 400 members of one of the San Fernando Valley’s largest and most active neighborhood groups. One after another, these Angelenos denounced the arena deal with a vigor unheard since Valleyites launched the Proposition 13 tax cutting drive almost 20 years ago.

I had been invited to talk about power at City Hall and the hot topic of Valley secession. But in the question-and-answer period that followed, all but one or two of the association members had just one subject in mind, the arena.

Some opposed the $250-million facility, which would be built adjacent to the Convention Center at the intersection of the Harbor and Santa Monica freeways. Others criticized the city’s planned contribution of $70 million, to be raised by selling bonds. Most objected to the secrecy that has surrounded the negotiations.

The reaction was significant. In one civic controversy after another, organizations such as the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. have been political bellwethers, particularly among the white middle-class voters who dominate the electorate.

*

Anschutz and his team would have known this if they weren’t the most politically inept bunch of entrepreneurs to hit L.A. in a long time. They have none of the skills of the master, the late Walter O’Malley, who knew he’d have to win public support to build Dodger Stadium on what had been public land.

That was in the late ‘50s, when baseball players were, for the most part, the sons of working-class families whose goal was to climb into the middle class, rather than attaining then-unimaginable wealth. Fans, mostly in the same boat, easily identified with the players. As a result, O’Malley mobilized enough fan support for a close election victory.

But this is the era of millionaire jocks and restless, rich owners who unsentimentally move from one city to another when a better deal comes along. Money mad owners and players breed cynical fans--and a backlash. Political consultant Bill Carrick said he has sensed the backlash as he directs campaigns in big cities around the country.

“The conventional wisdom has been for so long that we should treat sports franchises like religious things, that we’ve got to have them, and the public is ready to do whatever it takes to have them,” Carrick told me. “I don’t think this is any longer true. People don’t think [the franchises] are permanent and the same teams that came in could leave in 20 years.”

Sports stadium measures barely passed in San Francisco and Seattle despite huge campaign spending by their backers. And Carrick said Boston Mayor Tom Menino, one of his clients, received strong citywide support when he successfully opposed a stadium for the NFL Patriots in tightly knit South Boston.

*

Anschutz and his Los Angeles partner Ed Roski, backed by Mayor Richard Riordan and City Council President John Ferraro, understood the insider’s game. They hired lobbyists with clout and won an easy City Council victory in a preliminary vote .

But they had no feel for the most important part of the political equation, the electorate. That was clear when they and the city refused to disclose to the public the heart of the deal--a guarantee that the Lakers and Kings would stay in the arena for the 25 years needed to pay off the city bonds. The secrecy fed public suspicions that government was again trying to put something over on the people. Hoping to defeat the project, Councilman Joel Wachs proposed an election on the arena and sensed he would win.

Luckily for Anschutz and the rest of the arena team, City Council President Ferraro understands politics. Under his prodding, the arena developers agreed to guarantee repayment of the bonds, a move likely to take the steam out of the Wachs drive. And they said that this week, they will disclose the contract provisions requiring the Lakers and Kings to remain in the arena for 25 years.

The arena will be good for L.A. Combined with the Walt Disney Concert Hall, the new cathedral, the Music Center and the Museum of Contemporary Art, it will help make downtown the vibrant place it should be.

But it won’t be done in the political back rooms. Anschutz and Co. must sell their project to the public as well as the politicians. I hope they are up to the job.