What's next for Santa Anita after threat to sell the track?

1

On Thursday, the California Horse Racing Board will hold its most consequential meeting in 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.

It’s as if Diogenes walked onto the set of “Sophie’s Choice.” Anyone have a lantern?

The owners of Santa Anita on Tuesday upped the volume when they made a not-so-veiled threat to close or sell Santa Anita if the board greenlighted the Northern California project, which would replace racing at Golden Gate with that at the Alameda County Fair. In a letter to the board, the Stronach Group said the Pleasanton proposal had a serious lack of details and should not be OKd based on “speculation.”

Yet it was the Stronach Group that created this void in Northern California by closing Golden Gate Fields without discussion with its stakeholders, telling them hours before announcing it. There has also been no clarity as to what will happen to the land when Golden Gate 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.

2

Could Santa Anita actually be closed and 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 that do not include the Pacific Ocean. In other words, the land is valuable. Way more valuable than running horse races three days a week, seven months a year.

The Stronach Group is private so there is no transparency into its finances. But it’s not difficult to deduce from the small crowds (despite inflated attendance figures on big days) and short racing fields that the track is struggling. Senior officials pointed to $31 million in operating losses over the last five years. All the tracks need supplemental forms of gaming income, such as Historical Horse Racing in Kentucky (slot machines pretending to be games of skill), to survive.

So, it’s a very real possibility that a clear, easy, huge profit could be achieved by selling the track land to developers. The price might have a B instead of an M before the “illion” if it’s sold. The finances make sense, even if it means cutting loose a part of the family business in a sport that is in serious decline in a state that offers almost no incentives to stick around.

3

Who is on each side of the issue?

Not everyone has come out publicly, but reading comments and body language, you have the California Thoroughbred Trainers, California Thoroughbred Breeders Assn. and California Assn. of Racing Fairs in favor of racing in the north. The Thoroughbred Owners of California, Del Mar, Los Alamitos and, of course, Santa Anita, are in favor of non-fair racing only in the south.

4

What would happen if there is no racing in the north?

No matter how the vote goes, there will still be fair racing for a few weeks in the summer. That won’t go away, at least for now. The most significant impact would be on California breeding. The Northern California racing circuit, admittedly inferior to the quality of racing in the south, is built on the idea of running California-breds. With no Cal-bred races there is no need for California breeding. It’s not as if Arizona and Washington will run Cal-bred races.

5

Would running only in the south save racing in the state?

Not necessarily. Sending simulcast money to the south is only a Band-Aid to a bigger problem. The purses are too small because there is no supplemental gaming money to help prop up the purses. If you don’t have big purses, you don’t have owners and trainers who want to run in California. If you don’t have 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.

6

How will the board vote?

Understand that members of the California Horse Racing Board are paid a whopping $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.