Anaheim makes more sense than does L.A.
The Orange County Register - Friday, May 5, 2006
Too frequently, when the National Football League strides into any city, mayors, council members and even fans trip all over themselves and pledge to hand over the key to the storehouse ... if only the league brings a team to the region.
Tax funds, new bonds, whatever. The total public subsidy for all sports stadium renovations since 1990 has topped $10 billion, with public dollars comprising more than 60 percent of the total cost of the stadiums, according to the League of Fans watchdog group (www.leagueoffans.org).
We're fans of professional football and would indeed like to see a team in Southern California, preferably at the site proposed by the city of Anaheim, on city-owned property next to the home of a certain baseball team that bears another city's name. Nevertheless, we figure that if the billionaires who run professional football can't do it on their own dime, then we are perfectly happy being teamless.
So we were quite pleased to hear the details of a meeting Monday outside Dallas. Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told the 11-member NFL owners committee essentially the same thing: Come to Southern California, but don't look to taxpayers to foot the bill. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has echoed this view.
The NFL is eager, of course, to put a team in the nation's No. 2 media market, either through expansion or moving an existing team. The region has been without a team since 1995, when the Rams headed east, and the Raiders went back where they belong. Life has gone on. Despite the governor's pitch for two Southern California teams, that seems unlikely. But it does seem obvious that the NFL will do something in this region, with a decision likely May 23 when all team owners meet in Denver. The choice will be between locating at the now-inadequate, state-owned Coliseum in south Los Angeles or next to Angel Stadium, on city-owned property that would be sold to the team for about $50 million.
According to published reports, NFL leaders would be happy enough with business support instead of public subsidies. We're happy to see that emphasis and are pleased with the general outlines of the Anaheim proposal, which would not only avoid subsidies but would sell the land at the approximate market rate, given current zoning. Anaheim has given the NFL a May 31 deadline, after which it will pursue other options for the land. The city ought to stick to that deadline.
We subjectively favor Anaheim, of course, but that site also makes objective sense. Why remodel an old stadium in a dismal part of Los Angeles, when the NFL can build a new stadium near other sports complexes and in the midst of a booming commercial, retail and entertainment area, with easy access from more than one freeway?
Whatever the NFL decides, we hope it heard the message: No tax dollars.