Hahn Seeks Disclosure of Arena Terms

Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn on Tuesday joined the chorus demanding disclosure of documents relating to the proposed downtown sports arena, arguing that all agreements connected to the deal are relevant to city officials and the public.

“Only the City Council has the authority to commit taxpayer money on this project. That decision requires the council to be able to assess the risks involved,” Hahn wrote to lawyer-lobbyist George Mihlsten, who is representing the arena developers. “The council’s decision, therefore, should be made with full disclosure of all the relevant facts.”

The City Council voted unanimously last week to request copies of the lease agreement between the Los Angeles Lakers and the developers of the $240-million arena, Los Angeles Kings owners Ed Roski and Philip Anschutz, as well as other documents.

But there was disagreement at City Hall over the meaning of the council action: Mihlsten and some others said they believed it required release only of “relevant portions” of the agreements, with a summary provided of the rest; some lawmakers, however, insisted that the full agreements be released with only small details of “proprietary” information or “trade secrets” removed.

Hahn’s letter escalates the campaign for full disclosure launched by Times columnist Bill Boyarsky last month.

“Trying to split hairs over what’s relevant and what’s not relevant becomes almost an impossible task, when really everything is relevant,” Hahn said in an interview.

“I’m trying to make it real clear to them that I think the whole thing is relevant so we don’t get into an argument down the line of somebody saying, ‘How come we didn’t know about this provision or that provision?’ ” he said. “This is real easy to understand from the other side: We want to see everything. Since there’s public money involved, we have a right to see everything.”

Mihlsten said Tuesday that he had not yet discussed Hahn’s letter with his clients and could not comment on whether they will agree to provide the full texts of the agreements.

“We have agreed to release the relevant provisions of the contract, the relevant provisions that relate to the term and rights to terminate,” he said. “Any further requests from Mr. Hahn, we will evaluate and get back to them.”

Kings President Tim Leiwicke referred questions to Mihlsten. Bob Steiner, a spokesman for Lakers’ owner Jerry Buss, said Buss’ attorney was discussing Hahn’s request with Mihlsten and declined to comment further.

*

The core issue is whether the contract requires the Kings and the Lakers to play in the new arena for at least 25 years, the amount of time it is expected to take to repay taxpayers for $70 million in bonds the city would issue to help clear land for the facility.

In a letter to council members earlier this month, Buss said “the specific terms of that agreement have been and should remain confidential,” but tried to reassure lawmakers by saying that his team “is looking forward to its new home for the next 25 years.”

Some lawmakers--particularly arena opponents Nate Holden and Joel Wachs--said that is not enough. Beyond just the terms of the lease, Hahn and council members said they need to see other provisions to analyze the agreement’s overall enforceability.

*

“I’m convinced that when any of those teams become upset with the way the sky boxes are or whether the arena is being made available to them on certain nights . . . they can break the agreement,” Holden said in a written statement. “The public should know whether or not they will have a team here for 25 years and if there are any escape clauses that will permit the teams to leave the city and leave the taxpayer holding the bag.”

Although some involved in the arena negotiations have suggested that city officials sign a confidentiality agreement before receiving copies of the contracts, Hahn said he wants the documents released not only to the council but to the public.

Times attorney Karlene Goller, who testified at last week’s public hearing, agreed.

“They can’t do an end run around the Public Records Act that way. By giving it to the council, they [would] double the public’s right to it,” Goller said, explaining that the state’s open meetings law works in concert with its public records rules to ensure access to items under discussion.

Wachs echoed Goller’s view on the importance of wide disclosure.

“This is public business, public money. There are a lot of people out in the public who have ideas on this, who have information, who have input,” he said. “It’s not just that I should see it or that Jimmy [Hahn] should see it, it’s that everybody should see it.”