aitken

At the dawn of the 2025 season, we published a column with the headline, “What’s the future for aging Angel Stadium? It feels like an increasingly uncertain one.”

With opening day 2026 upon us, we’d like to update that: “What’s the future for the Angels? It feels like an increasingly uncertain one.”

I don’t mean to be an alarmist. Nothing is happening today, or tomorrow, or in the very near future.

However, the Angels’ stadium lease expires in six years, so what might happen beyond then is starting to come into focus. Angels owner Arte Moreno turns 80 this summer. Moreno — or a new owner, if Moreno eventually sells the team — could simply exercise options to extend the lease for another six years.

But that would not resolve the larger issue of replacing or renovating Angel Stadium. In the coming months, the city expects to release an assessment of what it would take to keep the stadium up and running for years to come, and that could trigger a debate between the city and the Angels about who should pay for what.

The Angels are frustrated by all of this, and in particular by what they consider the curiously timed skirmishes over their 21-year-old Los Angeles name. They are annoyed that, for the second consecutive season, city issues have detracted from the hope and faith and joy that surrounds opening day. It is the city, after all, that walked away from two deals that would have secured the Angels’ long-term future in Anaheim.

During negotiations for the last deal, city officials made clear that keeping the Angels was the top priority, even if Anaheim could make more money selling the stadium property to a developer that would not need to retain the stadium.

Now, with six years left on the lease and no commitment beyond then, the mayor of Anaheim says it is time to prepare for a future with or without the Angels.

“We need to plan for what we see as a vision for that property when the lease has expired,” Mayor Ashleigh Aitken told me. “That’s going to take time. No matter how that deal goes, we’re not breaking ground on any project next year.

“But what we need to do, whether it includes the Angels — which I hope it does — or not, is come up with a vision that includes everything residents want to see happen on that land. And only then can we truly advocate for a project that makes sense for us.”

On the day of the home opener last season, Aitken issued an open letter inviting Moreno to meet with her for “an open and honest conversation about the future of baseball in Anaheim” and listing eight starting points for negotiations on a new deal, including the Angels’ restoration of the Anaheim name.

“They have not reached out to us about reopening negotiations for potential development around the property,” Aitken said.

Moreno previously explored other potential ballpark sites, including Tustin in 2014 and Long Beach in 2019.

In Tustin, the targeted land is no longer available. In Long Beach, the proposed waterfront lot remains vacant, but the challenge remains too: Over 81 games each season, how would tens of thousands of fans drive into and out of a ballpark primarily accessible by a single freeway?

For the Los Angeles Angels, perhaps the solution could be found in Los Angeles County.

The Dodgers could bar every other major league team from moving into L.A., but not the Angels. Under MLB rules, neither team could stop the other team from moving anywhere within Los Angeles County or Orange County.

The logical landing spot would be Inglewood, where the Rams, Chargers and Clippers have moved since 2020. Inglewood Mayor James Butts said Sofi Stadium and Intuit Dome have helped to revitalize the city, with unemployment down, home prices up, and municipal revenue up.

“Before, we were known for gangs and crimes and poverty,” Butts told me.

“Now, we are known as the sports and entertainment capital of the western United States.”

How about a baseball stadium in place of the Forum?

“The Forum parcel is absolutely not large enough for a baseball stadium,” Butts said.

Butts said he believes a baseball stadium there would require about 170 acres for the stadium and surrounding parking. Angel Stadium and its surrounding parking lots cover about 150 acres.

On the other hand, the Athletics are building a ballpark on a nine-acre site in Las Vegas, where nearby parking, entertainment and dining options already exist, with more on the way, and with the A’s not responsible for any of that. The same could be true for the Angels in Inglewood, with Rams owner Stan Kroenke and Clippers owner Steve Ballmer developing the land around the sports facilities.

However, Butts said he did not envision baseball coming to Inglewood, at least so long as he remains the mayor. Not enough room in town, he said.

“We’re maxed out when it comes to sports,” Butts said. “We are not going to reduce the housing stock and move residents out to have a baseball team.”

Anaheim has one, plus a 150-acre site perfect for a new stadium surrounded by restaurants and shops and homes. There will be days to be anxious and worried about the Angels’ future in the city they have called home for 60 years. Today is not one of them.

Take it from the mayor of Anaheim, who told me that even after telling me why she wants the city attorney to look into whether the Angels are violating their stadium lease.

“Opening day, to me, is nothing about clauses in a contract,” Aitken said. “It’s about family traditions. It’s about kicking off summer. And it’s about getting so many factions and neighborhoods of Anaheim together for a singular purpose, which is cheering on our hometown boys. That’s the beauty of baseball.”

And, as a lifelong Angels fan, she had one more thing to say.

“Right now,” Aitken said, “we’re tied for first place.”

Two decades after owner Arte Moreno decided the Angels should play under the Los Angeles name, elected officials representing Anaheim are pursuing two paths toward getting their hometown back into the team name.

Assemblyman Avelino Valencia, whose district includes Angel Stadium, has introduced state legislation that could require any sale or new lease of the stadium property be conditioned upon the team reverting to the Anaheim Angels name.

Meanwhile, Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken has asked the city attorney to explore whether the Angels have violated their current lease by dropping the Anaheim name from legal documents.

Valencia’s bill — dubbed the “Home Run for Anaheim Act” — aims to mandate what the city of Anaheim could not negotiate in its ill-fated deal with Moreno in 2019: If a team owner wants to develop the parking lots around the city stadium, the team should carry the city’s name.

“The Angels have been supported by the city and its residents for 60 years,” Valencia said. “I think it’s rightfully owed to the residents that, if the team wants to play in Anaheim and be in partnership with Anaheim when it comes to future developments of that stadium and surrounding property, then the name should also resemble that.”

Angels spokeswoman Marie Garvey said the team had no comment.

The Angels’ current stadium lease extends through 2032, with the team holding options to extend the lease through 2038.

The city and team had agreed on a deal in which the Angels would remain in Anaheim through 2050, with the team buying the 150-acre stadium property for $150 million, renovating or replacing the stadium, and building a ballpark village atop the parking lots.

The state objected, however. The Surplus Land Act requires public property up for sale must first be made available for affordable housing, and the city negotiated only with the Angels. The city agreed to a $96-million settlement.

The Anaheim City Council ultimately killed the deal three years later, after an FBI investigation uncovered — and former mayor Harry Sidhu acknowledged in a plea agreement — that Sidhu provided confidential information to the team “so that the Angels could buy Angel Stadium on terms beneficial to the Angels” and that he “expected a $1,000,000 campaign contribution from the Angels.” The government has not alleged any wrongdoing by the Angels.

Valencia’s bill was developed in consultation with city leaders and publicly endorsed by Aitken and former mayors Tom Daly and Tom Tait.

Under the bill, if the city can obtain an exemption from the Surplus Land Act, the team could not buy or lease Angel Stadium unless “materials refer to that team as the Anaheim Angels.”

The bill would only apply to Anaheim, and its provisions would not take effect “if the city of Anaheim is able to come to an agreement with the Major League Baseball team known as the Los Angeles Angels about their affiliation.”

Valencia said the city could make a case for an exemption because he believed the Surplus Land Act was designed for smaller properties like school sites and municipal office buildings. He said the community should have the primary say in how such land should be used, even if that might mean less housing on the Angel Stadium site.

“We definitely need more housing because it’s so dang expensive to live, but the amount of housing (in Anaheim) that has gone up in the last 10, 15 years, I think, mitigates some of that,” Valencia said.

“I think folks in Anaheim think that Anaheim is doing their fair share of developing housing. I don’t want to muddy the concept by saying Anaheim is saying, ‘We don’t need any more housing. We have been so proactive in that space. But I think people are going to be thrilled that we want to make the Angels have Anaheim back in the name.”

In 2005, after city officials declined Moreno’s request to change the team name from Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles Angels, the owner adopted the “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” name. The city sued and lost, with a jury finding that the Angels had not violated a stadium lease requirement that the team name “include the name Anaheim therein.”

When the city sued the Angels and asked for an injunction to stop the name change pending trial, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos denied the request. He did, however, warn the Angels he would grant the injunction if the team dropped the “of Anaheim” and simply called themselves the Los Angeles Angels.

In 2006, after the city had lost its lawsuit, Polos ruled the team could market itself by whatever name it wished. By 2016, the team called itself the Los Angeles Angels. In state records, the legal entity is Angels Baseball LP.

“When it comes to official designations, and to how they’re registered, I want us to look into how Anaheim is being used by the team in any official filings,” Aitken said, “and what their requirements are to do so.”

When Aitken asked City Attorney Robert Fabela to investigate, Fabela said the matter would be discussed in closed session as a “potential litigation item.”