The plea deal signed by former Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu was damning: At a time when the city of Anaheim was negotiating a stadium deal with the Angels, Sidhu slipped relevant and confidential information to the team, hoping that the team would thank him with a million. -Campaign contribution in dollars. When the FBI asked him about it, he lied and denied it.
The deal ultimately fell through, but the question remained: Was the corruption within City Hall limited to the mayor or did the city itself violate the rules?
On Wednesday, for the second time in three years, a court cleared the city of accusations that it violated the state's open government laws in negotiating the Angel Stadium deal.
A three-judge panel of the state appeals court largely upheld an Orange County Superior Court ruling that the city had complied with the Brown Act in negotiating the proposed $150 million sale of Angel Stadium and surrounding property to a entity controlled by Angels owner Art. Dark.
Under the agreement, Moreno's company would have renovated or replaced the 58-year-old stadium and built a village (homes, shops, restaurants, hotels and offices) on more than 100 acres of parking lots.
For the second time in a decade, Moreno thought he had reached a deal with Anaheim, only to see the city walk away. The Angels' lease extends through 2029, with team options through 2038.
Moreno, 77, told the Orange County Register last month that he had no plans for a third round of negotiations.
“Right now I would say no,” Moreno said. “I don't like the word never. Right now I don't believe [Anaheim officials] I have an appetite for it.”
In response, Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken issued a statement saying the city would be willing to talk.
“We welcome a fair proposal,” he said. “As a city, we are committed to building on decades of baseball in Anaheim for generations to come.”
In Wednesday's ruling, the appeals court panel rejected four of five arguments presented by the Homeless Task Force, upholding the High Court's conclusion that the city did not improperly negotiate the stadium deal behind closed doors. .
The appeals court upheld one argument, ruling that the city should have allowed public comment by phone and not just email during the pandemic, so citizens could “address the City Council directly.”
“As almost everyone has experienced at this point,” Wednesday's opinion said, “email is easily and frequently ignored.”
In 2022, the Orange County grand jury criticized not only Sidhu but the majority of the council that supported him.
“The City Council majority's mishandling of the stadium property transactions betrayed its constituents,” the grand jury report said.
The grand jury, which said it began its investigation before becoming aware of the FBI investigation, said the city had demonstrated “a persistent lack of transparency and hasty decision-making in its handling of stadium property transactions, exacerbating distrust from the public, state and local government officials, and even some members of his own City Council.”
The FBI agent who investigated Sidhu said the former mayor's actions “may have violated the Brown Act.” Kelly Aviles, an attorney for the Homeless Task Force, said the officer's report was revealed after the Superior Court ruling and would not have been considered by an appeals court charged with reviewing whether the Superior Court acted correctly with the information it found. had.
Aviles said he disagreed with Wednesday's ruling, but anticipated that his clients would consider the case closed and not ask the state supreme court to consider taking up the matter.
Mike Lyster, spokesman for the city of Anaheim, said the city “welcomed” Wednesday's decision.
“For the second time, a court has determined that Anaheim followed the Brown Act,” he said. “For any other issues that have come to light with the stadium proposal, we support the city's open, public process.”
