Key Officials Say Cost Hurts Ovitz Coliseum Plan

Leading city, county and state officials said Monday that they would not support the estimated $225 million in public financing that may be required by Michael Ovitz’s proposal to put a professional football team in a renovated Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum served by elaborate new parking structures at Exposition Park.

The National Football League owners to whom the onetime superagent presented the plan in Atlanta on Monday may have been entranced by the project’s daring, but key elected officials--who saw the design for the first time in Sunday’s Times--were skeptical about the availability of that much public money.

Although Ovitz had no comment Monday because he was busy trying to sell NFL owners on his proposal, he previously has said that he recognizes the difficulty in securing that much public money. In fact, NFL sources say that in the past few days the league has been trying to identify an elected state official willing to lead the effort to secure the required funding from Sacramento.

Based on the comments of officials Monday, supporters of that idea appear to have a tough fight on their hands.

“I’m against giving any city taxpayer money to bring football to Los Angeles,” said Mayor Richard Riordan, who has long made it clear that the city will not dig into its general fund to support pro football. On Monday, however, Riordan also expressed confidence that Ovitz or financial services tycoon Eli Broad, who also is competing for the NFL franchise, will secure a team for the city.

Meanwhile, county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a member of the Coliseum Commission, insisted that the county won’t bankroll the effort.

“I think it’s absurd,” he said. “With 2.5 million uninsured children and adults in this county, with 75,000 children in foster care . . . with sidewalks that can’t be repaired by the city? Give me a break.”

That leaves the state government, which has the advantage of being flush with cash these days, but which also would confront practical and political problems in trying to steer millions of dollars to an effort largely intended to make it easier for billionaires to buy a football team.

Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) said he had not heard the Ovitz proposal, and he stopped short of rejecting it.

“I’ve had no discussions with Michael Ovitz regarding the state picking up parking costs,” he said. “Before I would reject that notion, I would want to hear from them why they thought the state should bear this cost.”

Paying the Price

Others were less cautious.

“State money comes from all over the state,” said Assemblyman Roderick Wright. “Why should a lady in Fresno pay for parking spaces for the Coliseum?”

Wright, whose district includes Exposition Park, recently secured passage of legislation that will pay for a new parking structure there, but the state’s contribution comes to $10 million. An additional $20 million is coming from the federal government.

In the case of the Ovitz football bid, estimates of the potential public contribution come to about $225 million. Wright is a strong supporter of the football effort, but he nevertheless questioned whether it was prudent for the state to invest so heavily in parking when the Coliseum sits near available parking at USC and elsewhere.

“At some point, people will begin to question the sensibility of the people who run the government,” Wright added.

Members of Ovitz’s main competitor, a group headed by Broad and developer Ed Roski, also have explored the possibility of seeking state help for their parking plan, but have concluded that the maximum support they could expect would be roughly $65 million.

“We think that amount is possible. It is a state park, after all, and this would improve it for all the tenants there,” said Alan Rothenberg, who was in Atlanta with Broad helping to pitch that group’s efforts to the owners. “But even that, you’d have to work for. There is no way that the state is going to come up with $225 million.”

In his pitch to owners Monday night, Broad said his group would ask Sacramento for $67 million. If the state refuses, Broad said his partners will pay for the parking structure themselves.

Ovitz’s group includes billionaire Ron Burkle, a politically influential grocery magnate with close ties to Gov. Gray Davis. One of Burkle’s political advisors is a longtime supporter of Davis, and Burkle strongly supported Davis’ candidacy. So far, the governor has not weighed in on the football debate.

The main incentive for an expenditure of state money on Exposition Park improvements is that Sacramento owns the land on which the park is situated. In addition, the state operates two museums, the California African American Museum and the California Science Center.

As a result, parking improvements might be sold as a way to help those facilities, not just as a subsidy for football.

City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, the leading proponent of bringing football to the Coliseum, has always declined to rule out public money for the undertaking. On Monday, however, he warned that Ovitz’s plan may test the limits of the project’s political support.

“Not having seen the plan or the proposal, it’s very difficult to comment,” he said. “But the only parking plan that makes sense for public support is a plan that benefits the entire park, not just football.”

Ovitz has attempted in his plan to do just that, offering to hold open parking spaces for the museums, even on game days. Still, the amount of money that might be required surprised most officials.

In fact, other than Villaraigosa, who is reserving judgment, the only state official reached Monday who did not entirely dismiss that notion was state Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Culver City). He said millions of dollars of state money for parking would be a hard sell, but added that it might be workable if bonds were issued locally and the money from parking was enough to pay any debt on those bonds.

“I would not reject out of hand the public financing if we could come up with a revenue stream,” Murray said. “We would have to be assured that there would be revenue.”

But Yaroslavsky--who as a Coliseum commissioner would be asked to participate in any decision to issue such bonds--said no conceivable parking plan could generate enough money to pay off the debt on a set of parking structures.

“Are you crazy?” he asked. Debt service would run about $20 million a year for that large a debt, he said. Even projecting optimistically, there is no way that football and the other facilities at Exposition Park could generate anywhere near that much money, he added.

“It would have to be a gift,” Yaroslavsky said. “And who’s going to give it?”

Fumbling the Opportunity

What particularly concerns some local football supporters about the Ovitz plan is a fear that the onetime Disney executive will wow the NFL into supporting his design, then fail to deliver on it, leaving the campaign in tatters.

“I think that’s a pretty realistic possibility,” said one football advocate. “That’s why we’re worried.”

While public officials mainly focused on the aspects of Ovitz’s proposal that called for taxpayer money, other observers expressed concerns about historic preservation.

Ovitz’s design recommendation calls for creation of a ring of parking structures around the western, southern and eastern edges of Exposition Park. Those structures would range from two to five stories high and would supply 27,091 spaces.

That would supply all the parking sought by the NFL, but the structures also would interrupt sight lines from outside the park to the Coliseum. The federal government and historical conservancy might oppose the project on those grounds alone, some officials said.

In addition, Ovitz’s plan would top the Coliseum with an illuminated, frosted-glass rim. Although that rim would not damage the existing structure, it would dramatically alter the stadium’s appearance, potentially triggering the opposition of conservation groups and threatening its approval.

*

Times staff writer Mark Gladstone contributed to this article.