It is hard to believe it was almost four years ago that the Coliseum Commission — guilty of long-term mismanagement but not yet touched by one ugly scandal after another — proudly announced it had “signed a deal that will keep USC at the Coliseum for
another 47 years” thanks to a naming rights agreement that “will be sold to
help generate more than $100 million in improvements to the historic landmark.
either going to be a functioning viable sports venue, or it’s going to be a
museum piece The road to the 21st century
Coliseum as a functioning sports venue goes through USC.”
by the State of California.”
“You’re giving away two public facilities that in my
judgment have significant dollar value and are priceless to what they represent
to the community,” Parks said. “If we truly believe this
is the way to go, why didn’t we go out for a request for proposal and get the
highest bidder?”
Parks’ own reputation as a commissioner is tainted by revelations in this week’s LA Weekly about how he got funding for his Fourth of July fireworks event at Exposition Park from promoters of the Rave concerts, where drug use was widespread among teenagers, triggering the investigations into the Coliseum after the death of a 15-year-old girl.
“Based on Coliseum documents received under a California
Public Records Act request made by the Weekly last February (and only this week fulfilled),
we found that the two main rave organizers who hosted parties at the property
have contributed a total of $40,000 to an annual event promoted by Parks’
office, his “Annual Exposition Park 4th of July Fireworks
Extravaganza” which is, apparently, a way to reach out to the constituents,” Dennis Romero reported in the Weekly..
“That money, according to documents, was then essentially
refunded to the promoters as a discount for their Coliseum facility rental fees
in 2008 and 2010.”
Nonetheless, the questions raised by Parks were also raised Wednesday by officials of a sports and entertainment company, U.S. Capital, LLC, which sent a four-page letter to Israel and other Coliseum officials outlining the basis for a lawsuit to block the USC and put the privatization issue out to bids (Letter to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission.pdf)
U.S. Capital claims it would be bring the NFL back to the Coliseum if it won the lease — a move that would trump AEG’s efforts to build yet another massive football stadium on public land just down the road at the Convention Center.
Among its many complaints are the Commission’s failure to meet the requirements of the Brown Act on public disclosure, the failure to conduct a study of impact on the pubic under the California Environmental Quality Act and the failure to put the management plan up for bids.
Worst of all, the commission has failed to fulfill its mandate, the very reason it was created, to make sure the facilities are run for the public benefit.
“This is
the sole purpose upon which the Commission was created
under state law. However, the Commission now seeks to withdraw itself from the day-to-day
management of the Coliseum, turning all control of the facility over to use, a private entity which
also happens to be the lessee of the facility,” lawyers for U.S. Capital said in their letter.
“The Commission has produced to the public no controls on
how the public‘s needs and interests would be met by such a transfer.
In fact, by placing the operations of the Coliseum entirely within the hands ofUSC, the Commission is allowing that potential future uses will also be decided upon outside the public’s eyes and ears. A private university’s goals and interests are significantly different from the goals and interests of the general public, and it is difficult to see how the Coliseum management in the hands of USC will further the public purposes of the Commission.”
It is hard to believe that once again we are seeing the breakdown in political leadership reaching this level where public resources of such enormous value and benefit are being turned over to private interests that can operate in total secrecy without any accountability and profit from their operation at public expense.
What good is government if it can’t run these facilities or the zoo or parking lot or anything else?
Which arrogant public official is the President of the Coliseum Commission who set up a special meeting in the middle of the Christmas holidays. Such an action was specifically undertaken for the purpose of excluding the public from the decision making.
Also, under the Brown Act, there is no right to discuss price and terms of payment in closed session. Any discussion of the public benefits or the rationale for the deal is REQUIRED to be discussed in closed session. If the Commission consummated this deal in closed session, it can be overturned by a Brown Act lawsuit.
Which arrogant public official is the President of the Coliseum Commission who set up a special meeting in the middle of the Christmas holidays. Such an action was specifically undertaken for the purpose of excluding the public from the decision making.
Also, under the Brown Act, there is no right to discuss price and terms of payment in closed session. Any discussion of the public benefits or the rationale for the deal is REQUIRED to be discussed in closed session. If the Commission consummated this deal in closed session, it can be overturned by a Brown Act lawsuit.
Which arrogant public official is the President of the Coliseum Commission who set up a special meeting in the middle of the Christmas holidays. Such an action was specifically undertaken for the purpose of excluding the public from the decision making.
Also, under the Brown Act, there is no right to discuss price and terms of payment in closed session. Any discussion of the public benefits or the rationale for the deal is REQUIRED to be discussed in closed session. If the Commission consummated this deal in closed session, it can be overturned by a Brown Act lawsuit.
How did Coliseum Commissioner Barry Sanders – of Latham and Watkins and current Rec and Parks commission pres – vote?
“long-time Coliseum Commissioner and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky offered praise for the lease deal” —this corrupt man better not be running for Mayor.
These actions by President Barry Sanders demonstrate why he is unfit for public service….he always acts against the public interest. He has been actively pursuing the leasing of our public assets to 1% private interests. This is the same sleazeball who is trying to put commercial advertisers in our City Parks. Now he arranges a short-notice meeting (the shortest possible notice to the public) during the Christmas holiday to pull this dirty, low-down, arrogant move when he knows it would be the most difficult time for opponents to his plans to turn out people to oppose it. Anyone think that there was any urgent need for the Commission to act during Christmas? We need to get rid of this creep.
The Los Angeles City gvoernment is doing just what its owners want it to do — funnel as much city wealth into the hands of the top 1% as possible.
This massive transfer of wealth running into the billions of dollars is just what the voters want. why else would Garcettis erve three terms and be front runner for mayor.
So let’s stop criticizing the poor billionaires who accept these gifts. If the voters did not always re-elect the goniffs and mamzers to City Council, then the city might be run for the benefit of the people. Football Tommy did not elect himself.
Barry Sanders is in his dotage. He is doing what fools of that mental capacity do.
USC is more trustworthy than the political hacks on the Commisssion and the electeds who appointed them. And USC has the managemment and money to get something done.
Come on, Jack, USC is just as hooked into the city’s cash flow as any other insider group – follow the money on the Oakie House bequest, sale, and acquisition if you doubt that…
And if USC is trustworthy, then so is UCLA, Occidental, Loyola-Marymount, Pepperdine, etc.
Hell, so is the Rose Bowl Commission, Majestic Reaity, and AEG.
Put it out to bid and see what comes back.
Barry Sanders suffers not only from dotage issues but that of Ebenezzer Scrooge. He would steal Christmas from a baby and the Coliseum from the taxpayers without batting an eyelash and nothing such as the public records act, the state’s environmental laws, or the Brown Act will stop his nasty schemes.
no no no is like all this low life crooks in city hall given alway los angeles for what ?
u s c all redy nows city hall is given alway evry thing at no cost to the well jack ass well conectect crooks frends so why not take this alway from the taxpayers this is another rape from city hall wake up taxpayers wake up .