As the saying goes, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." We're being
told that the state is going to make $96 million, paid out over 40 years, by selling the Orange County
fairgrounds to the city of Costa Mesa. The city will make $228 million over the 55-year lease of the
fairgrounds. And a mysterious entity called "Facilities Management West" will bankroll the whole thing at
no cost to taxpayers.
However, even a cursory glance at the Memorandum of Understanding between Facilities Management West and
the city shows that FMW will have free rein over the fairgrounds for 55 years with no real restrictions
and, in fact, won't even be constrained by Measure C, the voter-approved initiative in Costa Mesa designed
to preserve the uses of the fairgrounds.
For example, the MOU requires that the annual fair, Centennial Farm, Youth Expo, equestrian uses, and a
marketplace/swap meet continue, but as stated in the MOU, "FMW will have the right to resize and relocate
within the property." Thus, if the fair doesn't make enough money for its liking, FMW can "resize" it so
that the Orange County Fair consists of a clown and a bounce house. FMW would be legally within its rights
to "resize" the equestrian facility down to one horse in one stall if it wants.
But at least the city will exercise close oversight over operations, right? Wrong. The contract is not
between FMW and the city, but between FMW and a Joint Powers Authority made up of the City Council members.
The rent FMW will pay does not go to Costa Mesa, but to this JPA. And, under Section 5 of the MOU, FMW
agrees to meet with the JPA just once a year so the JPA can provide "suggestions" as to how FMW operates
the fairgrounds, which FMW is free to ignore.
The city is doing its level best to lock in this 55-year lease before the public realizes how ugly it all
is. For example, according to Section 10 of the MOU, not even the JPA has any approval rights over
subleases or operating agreements that FMW may enter into. So, for example, if FMW enters into a sublease
agreement to hold a 72-hour rave at the fairgrounds, with blaring music 24 hours a day and hundreds of
thousands of drug-addled teens, the city is powerless to stop it.
In fact, Section 9 of the MOU states unequivocally, "FMW shall have the right, without the JPA's consent,
to make alterations to the existing improvements" (emphasis added). In other words, the renters have the
right to tear down what they want, build what they want, do what they want, and neither the JPA nor the
city has any legal right to stop them.
But Measure C will stop FMW from ruining the fairgrounds, right? Not so fast. Section 5 states that if FMW
wants to pursue events or uses not consistent with Measure C, it can, if the JPA gives the "OK." No fuss,
no muss and no "vote of the people" as promoted in the initiative. If FMW wants to change the use of the
fairgrounds, forget Measure C, it just needs a vote of the JPA.
FMW has already begun discussing revenue from a sign program, "similar to LA Live," the downtown LA
entertainment complex including Staples Center, Nokia Plaza and high-rise hotels. This type of urban
development would devastate the quality of life of the Costa Mesa neighborhoods surrounding the
fairgrounds.
You've heard from Costa Mesa officials and newspaper columnists ["Fair deal – maybe," Commentary, July 18]
who say that, while this is a bad deal, it's the best that can be done. The Orange County Fairgrounds
Preservation Society strongly disagrees. We're optimistic that a better deal can be reached.
We had great hopes that local control would preserve our fairgrounds and ensure its protection.
Unfortunately, in their rush to obtain ownership of the fairgrounds at no cost to the taxpayer, the city is
on the verge of making a deal with the devil that would destroy the fairgrounds and hand over unfettered
control to developers who'd be under financial pressure to permanently turn our traditional local
fairgrounds into an urban entertainment complex with no public input.
At the outset, the city had eight goals for the sale: local control, preservation of existing fairground
activities, open and transparent governance, no risk to public funds, a smooth transition for employees and
assets, compatibility of future development with the city's General Plan, compatibility of any new uses
with existing public uses, and potential economic benefit to the city.
In order to reach a deal, the city has abandoned seven of the eight goals and even the eighth goal of a
"potential economic benefit to the city" is illusory at best.
In this case, no deal is better than this deal
