• Calif. lawmakers OK environmental law that could expedite construction of L.A. Stadium — LA times
• The Farmers Field Saga: Hide and CEQA — Huffington Post (Beverly Hills City Council)
• NFL stadium bill on way to Calif. Governor — Reuters
• It's all up to the Chargers can they goof it up? -- LA Times
• Lawmakers OK bill boosting NFL stadium in L.A. -- CBS Sports
• Increased value as ‘L.A. Chargers’ holds key to any move — SD Union Tribune
• Strickland Lauds Passage of Pro-NFL Legislation — Santa Clarita Radio
Lawmakers approve bill boosting NFL stadium in LA
DON THOMPSON, Associated Press
September 11, 2011
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/10/general-fbn-nfl-los-angeles_8670147.html
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California's state Senate on Friday sent Gov. Jerry Brown bipartisan legislation intended to speed up construction of a possible NFL stadium in downtown Los Angeles, shrugging off concerns that it could draw a team from elsewhere in California.
The bill, SB292, fast-tracks the environmental appeals process so Anschutz Entertainment Group can build its proposed $1.2 billion stadium near Staples Center more quickly. Supporters say the project will not start unless the city can lure a professional football team.
Sen. Alex Padilla, a Los Angeles Democrat, said his bill would help create 23,000 construction and full-time jobs, in part because the stadium project would be accompanied by renovation of the city's convention center.
"The sheer scale and magnitude of this project will be felt statewide," Padilla said.
Lawmakers of both political parties took turns lauding the potential for creating jobs in a state with a 12 percent unemployment rate, second-highest in the nation behind Nevada. The bill passed on a 32-7 vote. The Assembly had passed the bill earlier in the week.
"We're in a crisis situation when we're talking about jobs," said Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks. "To me, this is a no-brainer."
Padilla said the developers have promised to build "the most environmentally friendly sports stadium in the country." That includes compensating for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles traveling to the stadium.
In exchange, the proposed stadium would get an expedited environmental review process that supporters say would prevent the project from getting tied up by lawsuits. Challenges would have to be filed in the court of appeal and resolved within 175 days after the environmental impact report is released.
"It is pro-business without harming environmental regulations," said Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance.
Two Democrats who represent the home cities of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders spoke against a bill they fear could lure their teams to Los Angeles.
"That would be a job shift, not a creation of jobs," said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, who represents nearby Oakland.
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, also objected that the bill benefits just one developer and one project.
Padilla threw up his hands in an NFL referee's touchdown signal as the bill cleared the Senate. He exchanged hugs with Assembly Speaker John Perez of Los Angeles and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, Democratic leaders who had strongly supported the measure.
The Los Angeles area, the nation's second largest television market, has been without an NFL team since the Raiders returned to Oakland and the Rams left Anaheim for St. Louis in 1995.
"After eight months of conversations, negotiations and compromise with elected officials, today we reach another milestone for the development of Farmers Field," Timothy J. Leiweke, AEG ( AEGXY.PK - news - people )'s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. The vote, he said, "sends a very, very strong message to the NFL that Farmers Field will happen."
He said the development will let his company focus its efforts on bringing a team to Los Angeles. The company hopes to break ground on the project in June.
"This will be an economic and environmental showpiece, not just for Southern California but for our state and our nation," he said.
Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said the governor had not taken a position on the bill.
The Senate and Assembly also approved and sent the governor a second, broader bill backed by Steinberg that could aid construction of arenas, stadiums or other large projects in other areas of the state.
AB900 would allow a similar accelerated review of other major construction projects that meet higher standards than required in state environmental law. The governor would have to approve such $100 million-plus "environmental leadership development projects" for expedited handling, which Steinberg said could cut as much as three years off the construction timetable of projects that create thousands of jobs.
As with the stadium bill, backers argued that it keeps strong state environmental protections in place and encourages developers to exceed the minimum standards while jump-starting hiring.
"We all agree that we have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to put Californians back to work," Steinberg said on the Senate floor.
Some environmental groups questioned whether expedited review would create problems and high costs for Californians who lack the resources of big developers to quickly mount a court challenge. Several joined in the criticism of the last-minute bill with little time for analysis.
Jena Price, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League, also objected to letting the governor decide which projects should qualify for speedy review under AB900.
"The governor is basically playing God," she said.
Calif. lawmakers OK environmental law that could expedite construction of L.A. stadium
PATRICK MCGREEVY AND ANTHONY YORK, Los Angeles Times
Sep. 10, 2011
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/10/3898722/calif-lawmakers-ok-environmental.html
SACRAMENTO, Calif -- SACRAMENTO, Calif. - State legislators Friday approved changes in California's environmental law that could speed construction of a proposed football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, as well as other large projects that the governor would choose.
They also bargained into the night over Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to reshape state taxes.
A bill that would end the state's battle with Amazon.com by allowing the Internet giant to wait until at least September 2012 to collect state sales tax passed both houses on bipartisan votes. The measure, AB 155, is by Democratic Assemblyman Charles Calderon.
Also in a whirlwind of activity on the last day of this year's session, Democrats muscled through a bill that would permit as many as 100,000 child-care workers to unionize. The measure could expand the dues-paying ranks of labor unions that are among the party's main financial backers.
The Assembly approved a last-minute measure that would kick all initiatives to the November ballot. More voters - and more liberal ones - are expected at the polls for general elections than for midyear primary elections. Its fate was uncertain in the Senate.
Brown unveiled his $1-billion tax plan Thursday. It cleared the Assembly that night, with two Republican votes providing the two-thirds margin needed for tax measures. Final approval was uncertain after a Senate committee passed it Friday morning but senators from both parties requested adjustments.
The governor's proposal would end a provision that rewards corporations with large workforces outside the state. It would dedicate some of the savings to millions of California families by increasing the standard income tax deduction by $1,000, and it would give tax breaks to small businesses.
Brown did not say whether he would sign the bill to let the proposed stadium avoid protracted litigation, but in an interview, he endorsed a companion measure that would allow him to grant similar relief to other big projects certified as environmentally friendly.
"The CEQA reforms are an effort to improve the jobs climate," Brown said referring to the 40-year-old California Environmental Quality Act, which the new proposal would amend. "I think that will be good."
The measure, AB 900 by Democratic Senate leader Darrell Steinberg and others, would allow the governor to require that courts take no more than 175 days to decide environmental challenges to specific projects. Litigation would begin in the state Court of Appeal, whose ruling could be challenged only in California's Supreme Court. Currently, lawsuits and appeals can drag on for years.
Democrats, who unnerved some of their environmentalist allies by backing the bill, said it would help create jobs. "We all agree we have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to help to put Californians back to work," said Steinberg.
To qualify, projects would have to cost more than $100 million and win certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. But that certification is not granted until developments are built, said Katy Robinson, administrator of the council's Los Angeles office.
Lawmakers said they would adjust the bill next year to address that conundrum. Steinberg said the state couldn't wait "to get every single detail right."
John Zinner, a consultant who helps developers meet the council's standards, said they are the wrong yardstick for fast-tracking big projects. He noted that developers can gain certification without addressing traffic, often the main source of complaints about urban construction.
"I'm a little leery of tying relief from the environmental quality act to green building standards," Zinner said, noting that a builder can get the council's top rating without doing much to prevent a new office tower, for example, from sitting in a sea of gridlocked cars.
The bill was unveiled 36 hours before the end of the lawmaking year, and senators did not receive an analysis of it until 3:30 a.m. Friday.
The measure was inspired by the stadium bill, another late proposal, which advocates said would help propel a project that could create desperately needed jobs. The measure, SB 292 by Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla, passed the Assembly earlier this week and cleared the Senate on a 32-7 vote Friday. It would require that the Farmers Field stadium, proposed by Anschutz Entertainment Group, have provisions to reduce traffic.
"Today's vote sends a very, very strong message to the NFL that Farmers Field will happen," said AEG President and Chief Executive Officer Timothy J. Leiweke. "We can now focus our efforts on securing an NFL team for Los Angeles."
Padilla said the development would create more than 10,000 construction jobs and a similar number once Farmers Field began hosting football games. "We can provide an economic stimulus ... which (also) protects our environment," Padilla told his colleagues.
A few senators balked, noting that the team that could occupy the stadium might come from their own districts.
"It's a one-project, one-company bill, and I don't like that," said Democratic Sen. Christine Kehoe. "And more than that, it could easily be an escape route for our own football team, the San Diego Chargers, to leave my city and go Los Angeles."
The Anschutz company and its myriad backers pushed hard for approval. AEG enlisted fans to send more than 39,000 emails to legislators. Unions held a sit-in at the office of one Long Beach senator who had hesitated to support the bill.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell noted that the downtown project competes with a proposed stadium in the City of Industry. That one won an environmental waiver from Sacramento in 2009.
"We have two alternatives there in the Los Angeles market," Goodell said in an interview Thursday, "and we're going to continue to work with both parties."
While the stadium and environmental bills won bipartisan support, the child-care unionization measure devolved into a bitter partisan debate. Democrats passed versions of it for the past three years, only to see it vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. It's unclear what action Brown, a Democrat, would take.
Republicans accused Democrats of trying to bolster union ranks at the expense of taxpayers, who they said might have to pay more for their child care.
"I don't know the last time we unionized something and the costs went down," said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, (R-San Bernardino).
The measure, AB 101 by Steinberg and Democratic Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, would permit organizing of home-based child-care workers who receive state subsidies for looking after low-income children. It would also apply to adults who are paid by the taxpayers to care for younger relatives.
Democrats initially estimated that 40,000 workers would be eligible for union membership under the bill, but a legislative analysis pegged the number between 80,000 and 100,000.
Democrats said the measure was needed to give child-care workers clout. "These providers work on the front lines and deserve a voice at the table," said Perez.
The Assembly approved minor amendments to a measure that would outlaw the carrying of an unconcealed gun. The bill, AB 144 by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrati, now goes to Brown. Both houses also approved AB 183 by Democratic Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, which would make it illegal for food markets to sell alcoholic beverages using automated checkout machines.
Legislators kicked some big issues down the road. Rather than tackle the thorny subject of pension reform, they created a panel that could act on the matter before the next lawmaking year begins Jan. 1.
Also uncertain was the fate of a $500-million film tax credit that Hollywood desperately wants extended. Its backers have said they would try again in January if they could not win passage Friday.
Times staff writers Jack Dolan, Sam Farmer, Shane Goldmacher, Michael J. Mishak and Nicholas Riccardi contributed to this report.
The Farmers Field Saga: Hide and CEQA
John Mirisch, Beverly Hills City Council, Huffington Post
September 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mirisch/the-farmers-field-saga-hi_b_951203.html
Last month I went to a special meeting of the Independent Cities Association, a group of LA County cities working together on any number of issues, including promoting the important policy of local control. The special meeting was held at a Downtown LA restaurant and a presentation was made by AEG representatives to promote their Farmers Field football stadium project. After the presentation, the AEG reps answered questions and dinner was served.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that it turns out the dinner was paid for by AEG. I didn't know about it in advance and there's nothing illegal about it, especially as all the elected officials, myself included, will have to disclose it on their "Statement of Economic Interest" 700 forms. After the discussion and dinner, the ICA executive board, of which I'm not a member, went into closed session and voted unanimously to support the Farmers Field project.
Nothing wrong with showing support for the project as the ICA did, but the state Assembly went one step further by passing special legislation this week to expedite the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process for Farmers Field.
This was a mistake.
Don't get me wrong: the mistake isn't the project itself nor AEG. The mistake is advocating special legislation to benefit one specific project. That's just not fair, and while those familiar with the undue influence of lobbyists in getting favors throughout all levels of government might roll their eyes and think "Get real, son," I happen to believe that fairness is a highly underestimated commodity and undeservedly so. Fairness unfairly has a bad rap. Our parents may have told us "Life's not fair," but they should have added the corollary: "So we need to work extra hard in our daily lives to make sure that it's as fair as possible. And that includes the government."
First to the project: the dual-use stadium/convention center hall seems very attractive and it could, indeed, be a boon for the downtown area and for the region in general. It's certainly worth looking at, and, likely much more than that. Ultimately, it's in LA so it's LA's decision, and in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the LA City Council voted unanimously to move forward with the project. This decision should be respected.
The problem is not AEG. AEG is an amazing company with talented professionals, incredible business skills, first-rate operational expertise -- and on top of that, I understand that many of their executives are great dancers. Their political connections are legendary and to say they are smooth operators would be an understatement. They've been a good corporate citizen, and even though they've cut some great deals with LA, they have also tried to give back to the community.
But the question at hand is not whether the Farmers Field project is good or whether AEG is a good corporate citizen, the question is much simpler: should we be granting CEQA exceptions or mitigations for individual projects?
There is no doubt that CEQA is sometimes abused. Its main abuse seems to be in businesses looking to stifle a potential competitor -- and AEG has every reason to be concerned that the competing NFL proposal in the City of Industry will mount some major legal challenges. However, CEQA can also be abused by unneighborly residents who simply want to stick it to their own neighbors.
Yet for all its flaws, CEQA serves a fundamental and important purpose, which is to specify the impacts or potential impacts of a project on the environment and to allow policy-makers to require mitigations or, alternatively, to make statements of overriding considerations -- in other words, to be politically accountable to the electorate.
The main purpose of CEQA was not to create more red tape when Mrs. Jones wants to expand her living room or Mr. Goldstein wants to add a balcony to his house, but to assess the environmental impacts of major projects -- of which a football stadium would be about the most prime of examples.
While the state legislature all too often, trampling on the principles of local control, seems to usurp decision-making from the municipalities, CEQA and statewide environmental protections are, in my opinion, legitimately the sphere of the statewide authority. Otherwise, it would be all too easy for municipalities to use lax environmental standards in an effort to attract business. But the state legislature should not be making a-la-carte accommodations for developers with juice or for politically popular projects. Such a-la-carte legislation fails the fairness test.
A couple of years ago -- also in the name of "job creation" -- the proposed NFL stadium project in the City of Industry was itself granted special legislation which effectively dismissed outstanding environmental challenges to that project. Quite understandably, AEG looks at that exemption as a precedent for its own special legislation. Yet this is a very slippery slope: it opens the doors to any project which has the potential to create jobs (and that would be most of them) to look to the precedents created by the state legislature and to try to get their very own special legislation.
The proper response for the legislature now should not be to pass special legislation for Farmers Field or other massive projects. The proper response would be for the legislature to rescind the CEQA exemption for the City of Industry project. If the legislature sees a need to reform CEQA to stop abuse of the process without weakening the reasonable built-in environmental protections which are supposed to be behind CEQA, then that's well and good. But such reform should apply equally to everyone.
The legislature has a serious trust problem with the people of California and part of the reason is the stranglehold that special interests seem to have on getting special legislation passed, as well as the opaqueness of backdoor deals that seem to permeate Sacramento. By bringing back the concept of "justice for all," the State legislature could take a step in the direction of reestablishing some modicum of trust with its electorate.
Before you start accusing me of being a blue-eyed optimist, let me confidently state: of course, it ain't gonna happen.
LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich recently suggested that whatever exceptions AEG receives should also apply to hospitals, schools and libraries. Certainly these projects can lay claim to a public benefit, and, of course, there are other private projects which can also legitimately be seen to create jobs or provide other public benefits. Should they also get special accommodations or a CEQA cut-in-line pass?
The State Senate's response to the Assembly's Farmer Field bill would not expedite the CEQA process for everyone, but only for massive projects which have the most and biggest potential impacts. The Senate's proposal is to allow the governor to pick $100+ million projects to put on the CEQA fast track. This "and justice for some" approach doesn't really help the little guy, now does it?
As said, this is a matter of fairness -- or it should be. As things are playing out, it seems like it's going to be a matter of Realpolitik instead. Jobs are important, of course, but a "Jobs über alles" attitude can lead to unfair exceptions and to straying from the important reasonable environmental protections we all deserve, just as the "job killer" label can be overused in attempts to subvert needed environmental protections. It's all about achieving the right balance, and -- I know, I know -- that's easier said than done.
But we should at least try, shouldn't we?
AEG alleged that Antonovich has a bone to pick with them because his wife allegedly is embroiled in a financial dispute with one of AEG's affiliates in China. Political Yoda Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies said, "I certainly would have advised him not to take the lead on this. It looks bad." Perhaps. But it looks even worse if nobody takes the lead on this, and if Antonovich shouldn't be leading the charge, then, well, somebody should. I'd even go so far as to presume that the supervisor has raised the issue because he thinks it is a question of good government, in the same way that some recipients of AEG's lobbyist largesse presumably are also supporting AEG's request because they feel it's the right thing to do -- not because they are engaging in political payback towards a major donor.
Again, for the sake of full disclosure, and as much as I admire the organization, I have to reveal that I have my own bone to pick with AEG. If that disqualifies my calls for CEQA fairness, then please be the judge of that yourselves. But I must admit I am extremely disappointed that AEG's plans for Farmers Field don't include provisions for playing Aussie rules football. For all their sports success throughout the world, AEG just hasn't done enough, in my opinion, to enlighten American sports fans who don't know what they're missing with Australian rules football, also known as "footy."
AEG has a whole division devoted to soccer. In fact, they own Hammarby, a soccer team in Stockholm, which is an entrenched rival to Djurgården, the Swedish soccer club I happen to support. (Do I sense yet another conflict of interest here?) Beyond their ownership of the despised "Bajen" (as Hammarby is lovingly known by their devoted fans), with all the resources they devote to spreading the gospel of soccer, AEG has done nothing, to my knowledge, to promote the development here of Aussie rules football. If soccer is "the beautiful game," footy is "the awesome game." I'm very disappointed by this negligence on the part of AEG in regard to one of the absolute best sports in the world. There -- I said it. Not sure what Bob Stern would have to say about all of this, but I hope this at least sets the record straight, and that my suggestions can be taken in context.
With my own disclosures now out in the open, my suggestion to the legislature would be to effect meaningful CEQA reform now and to streamline the process without jettisoning reasonable environmental standards. For everybody. This would benefit the entire state, not just one particular group. Barring that, when it comes to Farmers Field -- or any other individual development project, for that matter -- the legislature should let the entire CEQA process play itself out. Let's see what the EIR says. Let's look at the impacts. Let's put into place the mitigations.
The Assembly was able to gain "concessions" from AEG in the form of additional green goodies -- such as commitments towards reducing the number of people going to the stadium/convention center by car. That seems to be nothing more than an instance of the kind of gimmickry for which the California State legislature has become famous. Clearly, it is already within the purview of the LA City Council to require these kinds of environmental mitigations -- all these green goodies and more, if they so desire -- in the development agreement with AEG. This should, in fact, be a matter of local control. But special treatment within the state legislature for individual projects, even with the rationalization of some cool new environmental goodies, well, it's just not the best way to deal with this issue, it's just not good government, and it's just not fair.
Unfortunately, because of all the spheres and streams of influence, we can expect the legislature -- yet again -- to do the wrong thing, as was the case when the City of Industry project got its special legislation. It's a done deal, I'm guessing, and the governor -- who under the Senate version of the bill will have the power to pick and choose his pet projects for CEQA fast-tracking -- will soon sign the reconciled bill. And so I wish AEG the greatest success in their Farmers Field endeavor: may it be successful for both your company and for the entire region, with a minimum of negative impacts -- and may you guys finally see the light when it comes to footy.
Perhaps when the Farmers Field project does get built, as it surely will, and we finally do have an NFL team in LA, we can look to the state Capitol for special legislation to ensure the success of the newly-minted LA team. How about a law mandating that the LA team gets five downs, while the opponents only get three? Why not? Even if there are seemingly no lengths to which the legislature, backed by the political machine, are not willing to go to bring back pro football to LA, it seems crystal clear that they're not overly concerned with creating any kind of a level playing field.
NFL stadium bill on way to Calif. governor
REUTERS
September 10, 2011
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/10/nfl-stadium-bill-on-way-to-calif-governor
SAN FRANCISCO - A bill to assist a proposed stadium project aimed at bringing the National Football League back to Los Angeles was approved by California lawmakers on Friday and sent to Governor Jerry Brown.
The bill to allow speedy environmental regulation review for the project won bipartisan support in the state Senate on Friday after clearing the Assembly on Wednesday.
Lawmakers from both parties said they backed the bill as a way to spark job growth. Between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs are projected to be created if the stadium is built in Los Angeles.
The stadium bill also sparked a companion bill to provide other types of construction projects valued at $100 million or more with faster judicial review of court challenges based on environmental regulations.
The companion bill is working its way through the legislature, which wraps up its session at the end of Friday.
Lawmakers are also taking up Brown's tax credit plans aimed at encouraging private-sector employers to expand payrolls.
California's unemployment rate stood at 12 percent in July, the second highest jobless level in the nation.
Despite being the most populous U.S. state's biggest city and the second biggest U.S. media market, Los Angeles has been without an NFL team since the mid-1990s.
Stadium backers say a modern facility is key to luring a franchise to move to the city.
Anschutz Entertainment Group would privately finance the stadium project, seen costing more than $1 billion. The stadium, named Farmers Field, would be next to Staples Center, which AEG owns.
The Anschutz Company subsidiary's project also involves Los Angeles selling $275 million in tax-exempt bonds to tear down part of its convention center to make way for the stadium. Lease payments for use of that land, parking revenue and taxes linked to rebuilding the convention center would pay off the debt.
Majestic Realty Co has a rival plan for a privately financed, $800 million stadium east of Los Angeles near where Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties meet.
It's all up to the Chargers can they goof it up?
T.J. SIMERS, Los Angeles Times
Sep. 10, 2011
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/10/3900240/its-all-up-to-the-chargers-can.html
LOS ANGELES -- I have teased the goofs who own the San Diego Chargers for more than 25 years. You can just imagine how excited they are about the prospect of one day joining us in Los Angeles.
But I hope it never happens.
I like work-free Sundays, sitting in front of TV with a pick of entertaining games to watch while not concerned whether our middle linebacker can make bail on a DUI arrest before the opening kickoff.
I'll never have to pay to enter the new stadium, but someone in my family will undoubtedly want to go, and I know who will be asked to buy the tickets.
Whatever the prices, they will be outrageous, and do you really want to pay full price for exhibition games?
Of course, there are probably a number of reasons why it would be good for L.A.: employment, business growth downtown, AEG's long-range bottom line, and a boon for football fans who think tailgating is a wonderful dining experience.
So who makes out here?
It depends on the Chargers and the NFL, along with some more questions that AEG and company point man Tim Leiweke need to answer.
I'm happy to report on Leiweke's progress to date because it is fun to watch someone take on a challenge and do more than anyone thinks possible in such short order.
This doesn't make it an endorsement, though.
Leiweke believes a team can play here next season and move into a new downtown stadium in 2016. He's the same guy who has to buy tickets so his hockey team can attend the Stanley Cup finals every year.
I've been writing about our Los Angeles Chargers and will attend Sunday's game. But I do so only to tease the goofs and the small-town yokels who think it's vital to have a NFL team.
If the Chargers are coming to L.A., it's more likely now they will do so in 2013. Or 2016.
But I also believe there's a way for AEG to begin work on a new convention hall and stadium next June, as planned, if someone presses Commissioner Roger Goodell for help.
When Browns owner Art Modell moved his team to Baltimore, the NFL guaranteed it would give Cleveland a team three years later so the city could begin construction on a new stadium.
If the NFL believes in the AEG project and makes a long-term commitment to L.A., no team has to concern itself with taking up residence in the Coliseum for the next four or five years while the stadium is built.
The Chargers are the only viable team to move here, but any team moving to L.A. would prefer to move into a new stadium.
The Raiders don't count as an option, although I'm told some consider them a NFL franchise.
If the NFL guarantees L.A. a team by 2016, that puts the Rams, who have a way out of St. Louis after the 2014 season, in play. It also puts the heat on the Chargers.
The Chargers are free to move every year from Feb. 1 to May 1, but AEG doesn't expect to get environmental impact report approval on a new stadium until mid-May, which would leave questions unanswered for the Chargers.
Those familiar with the Spanos family business interests, which include building apartments, say the Spanos family is averse to risk. AEG might consider EIR approval a formality, but teams don't announce an agreement with a player most of the time until a contract has been signed.
So the Chargers will probably wait, while keeping an eye on the Rams.
Those familiar with the financials on this deal say the team that moves into Farmers Field in 2016 will turn a $50-million annual profit. If the Chargers don't keep their eye on the Rams, they really do risk being considered goofs.
NFL involvement also keeps Leiweke engaged. From the outset I challenged Leiweke to remain on task, given his world travels and AEG workload.
He has done everything he said he would and has advanced this project, which was the brainchild of Casey Wasserman, to where he can now predict, "It will happen."
But what happens if the NFL doesn't guarantee L.A. a team, and what if the Chargers don't make the move to L.A.?
What if such a delay results in higher construction costs?
AEG points to the $400-million price tag set for its L.A. Live hotel project, those costs mushrooming to $1 billion. Three of AEG's partners backed out of the deal, but Philip Anschutz stayed firm and picked up the tab.
OK, but what happens if Anschutz can't reach the same agreement he struck with the Lakers when building Staples Center?
Anschutz is taking on all the risk in this deal, so he will be asking for a discounted sales price. NFL owners wouldn't be caught dead in a discount store, let alone discuss the possibility of selling a piece of their team at a reduced price.
But what's the Chargers' alternative? Remain in San Diego in a run-down stadium with no plan for a new playpen?
Dean Spanos took over the Chargers in 1994 from his father, Alex, whose tenure as owner was a disaster. Leading with his ego, he liked to refer to "my fans" all the time, as if the folks in San Diego embraced the Stockton-based businessman.
A few years ago, Alex announced he was dealing with severe dementia.
Those who know Dean wonder if he will be slow to act now while trying to protect his father's San Diego legacy - given the expected outcry if the Chargers leave.
Alex has no San Diego legacy, but that doesn't mean that Dean and his family don't think so.
And so it goes, the NFL with the chance now to come back to town while there is still football in San Diego today and maybe again next year and three more after that.
No hurry. As some of us might say, L.A. has its own legacy to protect: The city that doesn't miss having a team.
Lawmakers OK bill boosting NFL stadium in L.A.
CBSSports.com
Sep. 10, 2011
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15559154/lawmakers-ok-bill-boosting-nfl-stadium-in-la
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California's state Senate on Friday sent Gov. Jerry Brown bipartisan legislation intended to speed up construction of a possible NFL stadium in downtown Los Angeles, shrugging off concerns that it could draw a team from elsewhere in California.
The bill, SB292, fast-tracks the environmental appeals process so Anschutz Entertainment Group can build its proposed $1.2 billion stadium near Staples Center more quickly. Supporters say the project will not start unless the city can lure a professional football team.
Sen. Alex Padilla, a Los Angeles Democrat, said his bill would help create 23,000 construction and full-time jobs, in part because the stadium project would be accompanied by renovation of the city's convention center.
"The sheer scale and magnitude of this project will be felt statewide," Padilla said.
Lawmakers of both political parties took turns lauding the potential for creating jobs in a state with a 12 percent unemployment rate, second-highest in the nation behind Nevada. The bill passed on a 32-7 vote. The Assembly had passed the bill earlier in the week.
"We're in a crisis situation when we're talking about jobs," said Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks. "To me, this is a no-brainer."
Padilla said the developers have promised to build "the most environmentally friendly sports stadium in the country." That includes compensating for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles traveling to the stadium.
In exchange, the proposed stadium would get an expedited environmental review process that supporters say would prevent the project from getting tied up by lawsuits. Challenges would have to be filed in the court of appeal and resolved within 175 days after the environmental impact report is released.
"It is pro-business without harming environmental regulations," said Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance.
Two Democrats who represent the home cities of the Chargers and Raiders spoke against a bill they fear could lure their teams to Los Angeles.
"That would be a job shift, not a creation of jobs," said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, who represents nearby Oakland.
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, also objected that the bill benefits just one developer and one project.
Padilla threw up his hands in an NFL referee's touchdown signal as the bill cleared the Senate. He exchanged hugs with Assembly Speaker John Perez of Los Angeles and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, Democratic leaders who had strongly supported the measure.
The Los Angeles area, the nation's second largest television market, has been without an NFL team since the Raiders returned to Oakland and the Rams left Anaheim for St. Louis in 1995.
"After eight months of conversations, negotiations and compromise with elected officials, today we reach another milestone for the development of Farmers Field," Timothy J. Leiweke, AEG's president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. The vote, he said, "sends a very, very strong message to the NFL that Farmers Field will happen."
He said the development will let his company focus its efforts on bringing a team to Los Angeles. The company hopes to break ground on the project in June.
"This will be an economic and environmental showpiece, not just for Southern California but for our state and our nation," he said.
Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said the governor had not taken a position on the bill.
The Senate and Assembly also approved and sent the governor a second, broader bill backed by Steinberg that could aid construction of arenas, stadiums or other large projects in other areas of the state.
AB900 would allow a similar accelerated review of other major construction projects that meet higher standards than required in state environmental law. The governor would have to approve such $100 million-plus "environmental leadership development projects" for expedited handling, which Steinberg said could cut as much as three years off the construction timetable of projects that create thousands of jobs.
As with the stadium bill, backers argued that it keeps strong state environmental protections in place and encourages developers to exceed the minimum standards while jump-starting hiring.
"We all agree that we have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to put Californians back to work," Steinberg said on the Senate floor.
Some environmental groups questioned whether expedited review would create problems and high costs for Californians who lack the resources of big developers to quickly mount a court challenge. Several joined in the criticism of the last-minute bill with little time for analysis.
Jena Price, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League, also objected to letting the governor decide which projects should qualify for speedy review under AB900.
"The governor is basically playing God," she said.
Increased value as ‘L.A. Chargers’ holds key to any move
Tim Sullivan, SD Union Tribune
September 11, 2011
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/10/increased-value-l-chargers-holds-key-any-move/
Forbes magazine figures the Chargers would be worth at least $200 million more upon moving to Los Angeles. If that’s all it is, though, it probably doesn’t happen.
Unless that number is comically conservative, there would not appear to be enough financial incentive for Dean Spanos to justify an exit fee, a relocation fee and a new partner/landlord with a significant stake in his football franchise.
Trouble is, that projected $200 million bump may well be comically conservative. There may be too much easy money to be made in the nation’s No. 2 market for Team Spanos to continue to seek stadium traction in San Diego after nearly a decade of inertia.
When state legislators approved Anschutz Entertainment Group’s latest lobbying initiative Friday, effectively limiting potential legal challenges to its proposed stadium in downtown L.A., the danger that the Chargers will soon depart moves from theoretical to clear and present.
AEG is moving forward with formidable speed while San Diego observes with a mixture of shock, awe and exasperation. To some fans, it appears the city is about to lose the Chargers without a fight. To others, resistance seems futile.
What San Diegans spend on a night on the town is what Angelenos pay for valet parking. What Qualcomm and Sempra Energy provide San Diego as a Fortune 500 footprint is matched by modest El Segundo, an L.A. suburb that houses DirecTV, Mattel and, as of the 2010 census, only 16,654 residents. What Los Angeles Times provocateur T.J. Simers regards as the Chargers’ inevitable return to their shallow roots may be exactly that.
But if a deal is not already done — and no one would admit it if it were — there are too many moving parts to be absolutely sure of where everyone stands at this stage.
It’s certainly possible that the Chargers will open their final season in San Diego this afternoon against the Minnesota Vikings; that the downtown L.A. stadium AEG has been ramrodding will begin to take shape next summer; that the Bolts will take up temporary residence at the L.A. Coliseum or the Rose Bowl to await the glitz, glamour and greenbacks of the playpen pre-christened as Farmers Field.
Until more evidence emerges, however, I still see the Chargers’ departure as probable rather than preordained.
“What’s most beneficial for the Chargers depends on what kind of deal they can get in L.A.,” Forbes’ Kurt Badenhausen said Friday. “For the Spanos’ family to maximize the value of the franchise, staying in San Diego with some public funding is the best option. If that is not a possibility, then some sort of partnership with AEG would benefit the Chargers or the Jacksonville Jaguars or the Minnesota Vikings in L.A.
“But they (AEG) are not just going to build a billion-dollar venue and turn over the keys. Obviously, they’re going to want to be involved in the football side of the equation as well … It’s far from a no-brainer that San Diego would move north.”
Badenhausen authors Forbes’ annual NFL franchise evaluations, which last week pegged the Chargers as a $920 million property with 2010 operating income of $34.2 million. (Not bad for an outdated venue.) He acknowledges that his projections for an L.A. franchise may be low, but he appreciates that the equation is complicated by multiple variables.
Most obvious is the question of how much Chargers equity AEG would expect to accept Team Spanos as a tenant. If the company wants 40 percent of the franchise, for example, can it compensate the Spanos family for its reduced stake and abandonment issues with windfall profits?
Is owning 60 percent of the Chargers in L.A. worth more than owning close to 100 percent of the team in San Diego?
Also, could AEG acquire a larger stake of another team at a more attractive price?
What becomes of the Buffalo Bills, for example, should mortality overtake their 93-year-old owner, Ralph Wilson?
What becomes of the Vikings when their lease expires at the end of the year?
What happens in St. Louis when that city is unable to fulfill its contractual “state-of-the-art” commitment for the Rams?
Does all of this uncertainty create any more urgency in those NFL cities with problem tenants?
(Answer to that last question: Not that I’ve noticed; Jerry Sanders’ Magical Mystery Tour notwithstanding.)
“It seems obvious that the state of California and the municipalities are not going to (contribute) any money for an NFL stadium,” Badenhausen said. “It’s going to be up to the teams (and) it’s getting harder. To build a stadium in an expensive market, these things are getting pricey. It’s becoming very challenging for this last handful of teams that are looking to rectify their stadium situations.”
Like a lot of analysts unburdened by provincial paranoia, Badenhausen thinks the low-revenue Jacksonville Jaguars have the most compelling case for relocation. Though that doesn’t necessarily trump the Chargers’ earlier escape clause, it ought to carry some weight as the league seeks maximum revenue with minimal relocation.
“The NFL (doesn’t) want franchises moving all over the place,” Badenhausen said. “They want stability … San Diego, with so much wealth in the area, that would seem to be a very attractive market to keep.”
So it would seem. But if market size were all that mattered, the NFL never would have left Los Angeles.
Strickland Lauds Passage of Pro-NFL Legislation
Santa Clarita Radio
September 10, 2011
http://hometownstation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26004:strickland-lauds-passage-of-pro-nfl-legislation&catid=26:local-news&Itemid=97
SACRAMENTO -- Sen. Tony Strickland, co-author of Senate Bill 292, released the following statement on the passage of the bill. designed to help the National Football League bring a team to Los Angeles:
“This legislation is a no-brainer. It will help to ensure we bring jobs to hardworking Californians and bring much-needed revenue to Southern California,” Sen. Strickland said.
KHTS News Brought To You By:
“We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation and companies are fleeing California left and right," he said. "When most investors are taking their money out of state, AEG is investing billions into our economy. This project is privately-funded –- it does not rely on any taxpayer dollars -– and brings nearly $2 billion to our local community, as well as over 23,000 jobs.”
Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered right to your inbox!
“It’s been over 16 years since the NFL has had a presence in Los Angeles and it’s high time we change that,” Sen. Strickland added. “The
Farmers Field project will make Southern California a destination for conventions and big sporting events such as Final Four, the Super Bowl, and boxing events. This project will have a positive impact for years to come.”
“The only way we fix our current budget problem is by creating jobs and the Farmers Field project is a step in the right direction towards achieving this,” Sen. Strickland added. “SB 292 is also a step in the right direction in ensuring the project gets a fair environmental review, without allowing it to be held up in frivolous lawsuits.”
SB 292 expedites review for the Farmers Field project, without suspending the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the environmental impact report. Because the NFL is on a strict timeline to bring a team back to Los Angeles, this bipartisan legislation was necessary in ensuring the project moves forward.
SB 292 passed the Senate and now heads to the Governor’s desk for signature.
Strickland represents California Senate District 19, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara counties.