scrantillion
MCR Public Affairs & Advocacy
Speaker Pro Tem Steinberg 4/26/11
State Capitol
Sacramento, Ca. 95815
Dear Speaker Pro Tem Steinberg;
I am writing today a little while after the hearing. Before I get into the body of the letter, I hope that you and your family had a happy and healthy Passover, and that they are well. I also want to congratulate you on the measure’s passage from committee and look forward to working with you as the measure works its way through the legislative process.
With that in mind, I would like to share a few thoughts with you regarding the hearing and your bill.
1) Background: As I am sure you are aware, this is an issue that I have worked on for many years, as follows:
a. I worked withthe Honorable Teresa Hughes on eminent domain (franchise relocation) legislation that countered Senator Montoya’s in the early 80’s.
b. This work resulted in the creation of a Senate Sports Sub-committee that was chaired by Senator Montoya. I hoped to become the committee consultant, but the job was offered to someone else.
c. In the early 80’s I worked with legislative leaders to stop the California Sports Commission’s bid to expand their jurisdiction to oversee professional sports. The main problem was that they wanted to fund their efforts by increasing ticket prices (a ticket tax of 10%).
d. I participated closely in the actions of the Sacramento Sports Association and the Sacramento City Council in their efforts to rezone Natomas to help pay for both the team and its facility and resulted in the team being stolen from Kansas City and their fans. I even worked with Heather and others throughout the hearing to help develop the basic transportation infrastructure that would eventually become the foundation for the Natomas Plan. (FYI – it was my plan and hopes that light rail would go to the stadium/arena. The question now is this: it is planned to go there, but what happens to light rail expansion if the team leaves and the arena/stadium is no longer used?)
e. The above series of actions resulted in the bill referenced in the analysis and introduced by Mr. Sweeney. In fact, the person who staffed the bill for him was Saska Kim, the Committee’s consultant who wrote the analysis for your SB 652 (FYI: I believe it was her first bill).
f. Senator Barbara Lee introduced a bill for me that was killed in Senate Transportation by Senator Kopp that would have funded the construction of professional sports stadiums and arenas by creating special automobile license plates based on team logos and then put those funds into an account that could be used by the team/city to fund construction improvements.
g. A few years ago, Senator Kehoe introduced a measure that you should be aware of. It was in reference to San Diego’s problems with their stadium and the Padres/Chargers. In a nutshell, the bill would have made it hard for a team to relocate, but was killed in committee.
h. Combined, all measures and actions of this legislature, like those in Congress, have failed - for one reason or another. I hope that this is not the case with your bill.
i. Of course there have been other measures that have been introduced and passed by our legislature throughout the years dealing with sports, ranging from Stadium Design (Watson) to Ticket sales to wither ‘scabs’ could be used in public stadiums during strike shortened seasons. Combined, these actions had all sports leagues here represented by an Advocate (Houston “Pete” Sanford was the lobbyist for the Dodgers and MLB, while Fred Taugher represented the NFL. At one time, Former Senator Omar Rains represented the Kings).
2) Torlekson’s Big Box Bill: When this measure was working its way through legislative process, the California Alliance For Consumer Protection (CACP) was opposed to the measure because it did not specifically include sports teams. Ironically, the measure was prompted by events that took place in and around Sacramento – just like your bill is in response to actions taken by the Kings.
3) Harmon’s Question About Law Suits: I wished I had the opportunity to respond to his question. For the record, I backed off simply because of the look you gave me and my respect for you as a friend first and Pro Tem second (sorry, I have known you way too long to only look at you as only a legislator). Your look said please don’t say anything because we are in a good spot – so I didn’t. Normally I would have said something because I believe the answer needed to be on the record. But it was OK - I knew that Mr. Harmon was going to vote no on the bill (we spoke). With that and the future in mind, I want to provide you with what I think is the proper answer to his question: Although suits have happened, nuisance suits have not happened for a couple of reasons. First, legal recourse depends on the overall loss – often, cities are left holding the bag for large amounts, and those amounts are not considered nuisances and thus the suits are not. Secondly and just as importantly, the suits are often based on the league’s franchise relocation policies and practices, which often determine legal remedies. For example, based on the Sherman Anti-trust act, baseball teams CAN NOT MOVE without permission from the league, whereas in the NBA, NFL, or NHL, teams can relocate without permission from the league. At this point, I want to point out that these leagues do vote and give “tacitly” give their permission, but based on court rulings in Raider case(s), they are perfunctory votes that carry little weight).
OK, so where does this leave us? For the record, I developed a sport policy that is based on three specific parts that make up the sports franchise relocation process. The first part is transparency (team dealing fairly and openly with the city and its fans), followed up by notification (communications with the city leaders who oversee the investment) and finally effective penalties that prevents 3rd party abuse and protects consumers (I. E. this is the worst part of the process and something we need to do - we need to stop 3rd party entities from approaching our teams, urging them to default on their contracts and obligations and then relocate to their city by offering them special financial deals).
Turning to your measure, if we added these concepts to your measure, California would lead the nation in protecting its sports teams from 3rd party encroachment. Knowing that you want to pass the most effective bill possible, and thus protect all of California’s cities and their fans, I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss in detail a set of amendments with you personally, or your staff. The concepts that should also be included in your measure are:
a. TRANSPARENCY: Any team that is contacted by another municipality, while under contract, should report to their home municipality within 72 hours of such contact or face a monetary penalty that includes loss of tax benefits for a minimum of 1 year (a suggestion that has been floated twice in this legislature – first by Senator Hayden floated during the last baseball strike and then again by myself when MLB threatened to “contract” and get rid of both Anaheim’s Angels and the Oakland Athletics).
b. DISCLOSURE: Any team that receives a written offer from a third party, must present that offer to the city they reside in within 72 hours, so that city may study the offer and then make an alternative offer. Failure to do so means that the sports entity will face a monetary penalty that includes loss of tax benefits for a minimum of 2 years.
c. PENALTIES: Increase 3rd party ‘interference’ penalties, possibly using a sliding scale. This scale should be based on the length of the contract and the amount outstanding. For example, a contract with 5 years remaining should be treated differently than a 10 year contract (note: these numbers are for conversation – the scale simply should be established). I do not have exacts for this scale, but have a firm idea of what they should look like and how they should operate.
d. Committee: Because of the problems our sports infrastructure is facing, the Senate should establish a committee that provides oversight and coordination of sports policy.
Combined, these actions will act as an inducement to stop cities from making offers to sports teams that are under contract or have outstanding balances with their community, and thus protect the investment that fans make in their sports teams. I hope that we can find someplace in your legislative proposal to insert some or all of this language.
In closing, we look forward to talking to you about these ideas and supporting your measure as this bill makes its way through the 2001-12 legislative process.
Sincerely;
Michael Ross, Consumer Advocate & Sports Fan
