What’s next for Santa Anita after threat to sell the track?
On Thursday, the California Horse Racing Board will hold the most consequential meeting of its 91-year existence. It must decide if it will allow racing to continue in Northern California based on a proposal long on hope and short on specifics. Or, if it will send that business — and simulcast money — to the south in the hope of saving the strongest part of the state’s racing infrastructure.
The owners of Santa Anita Park on Tuesday turned up the volume when they made a not-so-veiled threat to close or sell the track if the board approved the Northern California project, which would replace racing at Golden Gate Fields in Berkeley with racing at the Alameda County Fair in Pleasanton. In a letter to the board, the Stronach Group said the proposal had a serious lack of details and should not be approved based on “speculation.”
Yet it was the Stronach Group that created this void in Northern California by closing Golden Gate. There has been no clarity as to what will happen to the land when the track is demolished. Lack of details seems to be de rigueur in the politics of California racing.
Here’s a look at some of the questions roiling racing in the state.
Could Santa Anita actually be sold?
One look from the grandstand at the snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains tells you that there are few more picturesque places in Southern California. In other words, the land is valuable. Way more valuable than to be used running horse races three days a week, seven months a year.
The Stronach Group is a private company so there is no transparency into its finances.
But it’s not difficult to deduce from the small crowds and short fields that the track is struggling. Senior officials pointed to $31 million in operating losses over the last five years.
So it’s very possible that a clear, easy, huge profit could be achieved by selling the land to developers. The price might be more than $1 billion. The financial boon makes sense in a sport that is in serious decline in a state that offers almost no incentives for racing to stick around.
What happens if no racing in the north?
No matter how the vote goes, there still will be fair racing for a few weeks in the summer, at least for now. The most significant impact would be on California breeding. The admittedly inferior Northern California racing circuit is built on the idea of running Californiabreds. With no Cal-bred races, there is no need for California breeding.
Is running only in south the solution?
Not necessarily. Sending simulcast money to the south is only a Band-Aid for a bigger problem. The purses are too small because there is no supplemental gaming money to help prop them up. Without big purses, you don’t have owners and trainers who want to run in California. Without a lot of horses, bettors, the real fuel in the industry, don’t want to bet small fields. So, low betting is bad for everyone.
How will the board vote?
Members of the CHRB are paid only $100 a month plus expenses. While they are appointed by the governor, they are not politically motivated. Sometimes they vote with their heart or their gut. The Times has it handicapped this way:
Dennis Alfieri rarely votes against Santa Anita and once praised its performance during the 2019 fatality crisis, when the track refused a request by the board to close. Thomas Hudnut has close ties to Los Alamitos, a track that would benefit from no Northern California racing, but he can be a wild card. Chairman Greg Ferraro, perhaps the most pragmatic of the commissioners, is believed to be leaning toward the south.
Vice Chair Oscar Gonzales has indicated he’s firmly in the north camp. Brenda Davis usually votes with Gonzales. Damascus Castellanos represents labor, and keeping Northern California jobs could be a priority.
So, who’s left? That’s Wendy Mitchell. She normally votes with Gonzales, but her tough questioning of the fair representatives in the January meeting showed she needs to be convinced that the Northern California plan can work.
But it’s racing — anything can happen.