L A Angels, leaving Anaheim Stadium

Related:
Create New Tag

10/16/2018 2:08 PM

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24999172/angels-opt-stadium-lease-anaheim
Just read this on ESPN, wondering what it means for SX,

|

@TONY351KTM

10/16/2018 2:14 PM

Article says they'll be there next season. Mentions a new stadium but nothing done yet.

Had to get out now or wait until 2028.

Will they just leave it empty once they leave or demolish it?

|

"Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower."

10/16/2018 3:13 PM

Year round Supercross and Monster trucks with a few concerts in between.

|

10/16/2018 3:45 PM

IMO they‘ll be there at least 3 to 4 more years unless they play at Dodger stadium waiting for their new stadium to be built

|

10/16/2018 4:38 PM

It doesn't mean anything except the Angels want a negotiating tool to squeeze as many concessions (tax money) out of the city of Anaheim, and it may help that there will be a new mayor and city council members after elections next month, who may be more compliant than the current ones.

The Angels already tried to find another nearby stadium location a couple of years ago, no takers. I don't think they are going anywhere.

|

10/16/2018 5:11 PM

Unless Arte Moreno wants to pay to build a new stadium, the Angels will keep playing at the same place. Californians have emphatically shown that they aren't interested in using tax money to subsidize millionaires and billionaires.

|

10/17/2018 11:37 AM

RichieW13 wrote:

Unless Arte Moreno wants to pay to build a new stadium, the Angels will keep playing at the same place. Californians have ...more

Seems to be a major disconnect between the tax payers and the government in California. If they elect Newsome as governor and her gets proposition 13 overturned, that state will have people running to other states where they can afford to live. Good luck to the Angels if that happens.

|

10/17/2018 11:44 AM

RichieW13 wrote:

Unless Arte Moreno wants to pay to build a new stadium, the Angels will keep playing at the same place. Californians have ...more

rdrurypi wrote:

Seems to be a major disconnect between the tax payers and the government in California. If they elect Newsome as governor and ...more

What's the disconnect? Taxpayers would rather have their tax money go to things that help the average person instead of rich people.

Not that it really has anything to do with Angel Stadium, but Newsom doesn't have anything to do with the prop 13 rollback. It's unclear if Newsom supports the idea. It will likely be the voters to decide it as a proposition in 2020. The rollback is intended to only apply to commercial properties - not residences.

|

10/17/2018 12:20 PM

It means feld will be able to rent it cheap, so all 17 rounds will be there.

|

10/17/2018 12:21 PM

The disconnect is the current state of California. Taxes were ment to pay for infrastructure such as roads, fire, police, etc and not for redistribution to others to help politicians stay in power. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but proposition 13 is for reducing taxes on homes, businesses and farms. If you raise taxes on homes, many fixed income people can not afford it and would have to sell their homes to survive. If you jack up taxes on businesses, they will either scale down the number of employees or leave the state and if you raise taxes on farmers, well you would see them go out of business and food would become scarce. As for Newsome, he supports elimination of prop 13.

If all of this happens, say hello to the Arizona Angels.

|

10/17/2018 1:17 PM

rdrurypi wrote:

The disconnect is the current state of California. Taxes were ment to pay for infrastructure such as roads, fire, police, etc ...more

The only thing I can find regarding Newsom is: "Gavin Newsom has voiced lukewarm support for the concept, but has repeatedly stated that Prop. 13 reform should be part of a “broader conversation on tax reform in the state.” "

Prop 13 isn't exactly a tax reduction, it just limits the amount that property taxes can increase. The idea is to help retired people afford their homes as real estate values can increase so quickly in California. Businesses don't need to be protected from the effects of inflation in the same way that pensioners do.

The Angels are one of the most valuable teams in baseball - because of where they are located. They aren't moving.

|

10/17/2018 1:36 PM

I had read an article about Newsome that had indicated he was for overturning 13, but we all know how the media reports now days. Prop 13 is part of the California State constitution, which would require 2/3 of the population to vote it out or make changes. You seem to have a hard time understanding that businesses are owned by people and is a direct tax on people. All businesses are not Walmart, small businesses are the backbone of every state. It's bad enough that California has an 11% state income tax, plus all the other bullshit taxes that they place on EVERYTHING. I escaped California and took my talents to Florida. I miss my friends and family, but I consistently hear about how the state is circling the drain. The last time I was there, I got to see the homeless village in the riverbed in Anaheim. What a sad thing to see. It was explained to me that it was primarily people that were drug users and it was out of control as the city sat back and let it happen.

I bet Arte would listen to a group from another state looking for a MLB team and he would be smart to look around. Look how it worked for my Raiders, now they are going to Vegas. It's all about the $$$.

|

10/17/2018 2:48 PM

rdrurypi wrote:

I had read an article about Newsome that had indicated he was for overturning 13, but we all know how the media reports now ...more

It would actually take a majority of *voters* and 2/3 of the *legislature* to enact a partial repeal of Prop 13. Yes, I am aware of how taxes work and that allowing commercial property taxes to raise at the same rate as the value of those properties would impact everybody.

Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to increase the price of homes and reduce the number of homes that reach market.

MLB and NFL have different revenue models. Most of the NFL teams' revenue comes from their share of the national TV contract. So whether the Raiders are located in Oakland or Las Vegas, doesn't affect their cut. But in MLB, some teams make most of their money from local TV contracts. The Angels still have about 12 years left on a contract that pays them $150M/year. I'm sure that contract would no longer be valid if the team moved to Las Vegas, and they aren't getting a contract that big in a small market like Vegas.

|

10/17/2018 4:39 PM

HuskyEd wrote:

IMO they‘ll be there at least 3 to 4 more years unless they play at Dodger stadium waiting for their new stadium to be built

Or, unless they become the LAS VEGAS Angeles!

|

10/17/2018 8:42 PM

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to increase the price of homes and reduce the number of homes that reach market"

Define partly
1%-20%-50% ?

|

10/17/2018 8:47 PM

RichieW13 wrote:

It would actually take a majority of *voters* and 2/3 of the *legislature* to enact a partial repeal of Prop 13. Yes, I am ...more

From the sound of it you seem in favor of pulling back prop 13. Question, do you own a business or a home?

|

10/17/2018 9:13 PM

Construction is MAXED out in the Southland. Between the new Rams/Charger stadium. Improvements at the Coliseum Raiders Stadium, San Francisco is going off, huge hospital projects are going on, nothing will be built like a Stadium for at least two years possibly three. But yes, they could build a new Stadium in the parking lot and then destroy the old one. Lots of new business, lofts and combined real estate has been built right where Angeles stadium is. Its high value real estate.

|

10/17/2018 9:22 PM

rdrurypi wrote:

I had read an article about Newsome that had indicated he was for overturning 13, but we all know how the media reports now ...more

RichieW13 wrote:

It would actually take a majority of *voters* and 2/3 of the *legislature* to enact a partial repeal of Prop 13. Yes, I am ...more

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to increase the price of homes and reduce the number of homes that reach market."


What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? Homeless problem is related to the lack of mental health, exasperated by the liberals pulling back all enforcement and just letting them set up camp. Over half the homeless population prey on the other half. Ronnie Reagan is the genius behind this. I loved the guy but lets put the blame where it belongs.

http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013/10/14/did-reagans-crazy-mental-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/

The price of homes are related to Greed, Chinese and the simple fact California was the Only state employing anyone for the longest time. The Chinese spent a large portion of 2012 to 2015 buying everything they could.

Let me ask you, How many out of state plates do you see a day? I see at least six new ones, each day. We haven't a Housing problem, we have a "too many god damn people problem.' 40 Million people. We got 20 million over the last 20 years. They ALL Need to go back.

|

10/17/2018 10:17 PM

tunedlength wrote:

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to ...more

There's no way to know. Prop 13 has some affect on increasing the cost of housing. I don't have the data to quantify it. Then, high housing prices are only one part of the homeless problem. So, Prop 13 probably has less than 5% impact on the homeless problem, and maybe even closer to 1%.

|

10/17/2018 10:19 PM

Tiki wrote:

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to ...more

"What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? "

Just that high housing costs are one of the factors that lead to homelessness. It's not a significant factor, but it is a factor.

|

10/17/2018 10:34 PM

SteezGeez wrote:

From the sound of it you seem in favor of pulling back prop 13. Question, do you own a business or a home?

Well, I keep running into comments on the internet where people are talking about Prop 13 being repealed. And best I can tell, the only serious effort is to repeal the Commercial Property aspect of Prop 13. So when I see those inaccuracies, I try to clarify them.

Yes, I do own a home. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the idea of a modification to Prop 13. I would need to know the specifics of the plan before I voted for it. But in a vacuum, I would probably support a full repeal of Prop 13. I am in favor of minimal taxes and limiting government waste. But, I am also in favor of everybody paying their fair share of taxes, so I don't like when certain groups get special tax breaks. I think the mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated as well. I don't think either of these things could be eliminated instantly. They would have to be phased out, or it would create another mortgage crisis with millions of California homeowners going underwater because the value of their homes plummeted.

|

10/18/2018 7:06 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/18/2018 7:09 PM

tunedlength wrote:

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to ...more

RichieW13 wrote:

There's no way to know. Prop 13 has some affect on increasing the cost of housing. I don't have the data to quantify it. Then, ...more

I get a kick out of folks just making up random statistics...always makes me chuckle...thanks for the laugh

The bit about limiting annual property tax increases (the crux of Prop 13) somehow "allowing" home prices to increase, thereby making more people homeless is some dizzying logic...

|

10/18/2018 7:18 PM

tunedlength wrote:

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to ...more

How the F^€K does some fool “not like” a reasonable question like this?

Here’s the reality: there IS a homeless problem in California that’s become “epidemic”. If any one of you thinks it’s a “California Only” thing, well, your a fool. I was in Vegas last week: it’s bad there. Dallas this week: it’s bad there. Portland? It’s crazy bad there...emphasis on Crazy. London: it’s bad there.

|

Nobody ever told me, I found out for myself. You've got to believe in foolish miracles. It's not how you play the game, it's if you win or lose. You can choose. Don't confuse. Win or lose. It's up to you!

10/18/2018 7:39 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/18/2018 7:40 PM

I’m sorry that my post has turned into a political debate I don’t fully understand not living in the USA. ???



|

@TONY351KTM

10/18/2018 7:55 PM

RichieW13 wrote:

It would actually take a majority of *voters* and 2/3 of the *legislature* to enact a partial repeal of Prop 13. Yes, I am ...more

Tiki wrote:

"Prop 13 is partly responsible for that homeless population. The reduced tax rate for longtime homeowners has helped to ...more

RichieW13 wrote:

"What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? "

Just that high housing costs are one of the factors that lead to homelessness. ...more

If the cost of housing goes up, people move. They don't throw their shit into a basket and push it along the street. No, i dont believe the cost of housing is not a factor for the derelicts on the street. But...

Half of the homeless are due to mental health issues. No place to go and be weird. We used to have it, it went away, thanks to Ronnie, That's why I linked the article you didn't read.

The other half is made up of criminals preying on the homeless and the lazy. I'm not venturing a guess at to what's what. At least in DTLA that's the make up.

While you can say, high cost of housing is a contributing factor as we just ousted all the homeless from Santa Ana, many had jobs, but many just refused to give into housing when they could tent it. Its laziness and some people displaced by the housing crisis that evicted them onto the streets after they signed loans that they didn't read and didn't look for a house when the Marshalls put up the sign on the door in 2010 and they stayed until 2015

That's my take on it. We still have a problem and check this out. There are 31,000 homeless in Los Angeles. They are spending $450 Million dollars on homeless projects. Not one of those is Mental Health. It's all structures etc. There's been no improvements.

I think they are laundering the money.

|

10/18/2018 8:32 PM

If everything works out right they’ll be the Las Vegas angels. The owner of the rio is going to demolish his hotels and surrounding properties to build a state of the art mlb stadium. If not the angels then the next team up who’s in need of a new home. Either way it’s definitely happening

|

10/18/2018 9:02 PM

Sometimes, I wonder if they just dump tax money in the landfill. They collect more and more but nothing ever gets fixed and the schools, firefighters, police etc. are always whining about not having enough money.

|

10/18/2018 9:20 PM
Edited Date/Time: 10/18/2018 9:21 PM

I live a few miles from the stadium and this story has been on the local news.The title of this thread is not accurate, and our local news - to my surprise - was at least responsible enough to say "this does NOT mean the Angels are leaving the stadium". The link provided says the same.

They didn't renew because this was their only window to renegotiate the terms, and I don't blame them. The entire perimeter of the stadium has recently had major development with very expensive apartments/condos. Also, there's 3 new breweries, high-end expensive breweries that opened directly across Orangewood ave, on the South side.

Any legal team negotiating a lease is going to look at all of that development and leverage it.

Personally, I hope they stay so we can continue to walk home after A1 and A2 supercross races smile

DR484

|


"Never do something permanently foolish just because you are temporarily upset..."
-----------------------------------My Vital MX Bike Check Page--------------------------------

10/22/2018 10:58 AM

It depends how the repeal was enacted. If it instantly forced every house to be re-assessed at market value, then there would be a lot of people whose tax bills might go from $2,000/year to $8,000/year, if they've owned their house a long time. I think most of those people would be fine, because if you bought a house in California 30 years ago and still living there, you are probably in good financial shape. But there are others who may not be, and that additional $500/month in housing cost might be painful.

Because of that, I don't think it would be fair to just hit them with a new assessment. I think the assessment would have to be eased in over the course of 10 years or more for existing home owners. New purchases would assess at market value.

This would loosen the real estate market. Currently there are people who don't want to sell their homes because they are locked in to a lower tax rate. Having more homes on the market will help keep competition up for home purchases, which helps to keep the price down.

|