Sacramento might end up doing what years of lawsuits and local grumbling have not quite pulled off yet: push the Los Angeles Angels to officially put “Anaheim” back in their name if the city wins the right to sell or re-lease Angel Stadium. A new proposal from an Assemblymember whose district includes the ballpark would tie any future sale or fresh lease paperwork to Anaheim’s name, and it has already prompted the city’s mayor to ask the city attorney for a legal review. A long-running branding tug-of-war over the team has suddenly become a potential state-level bargaining chip in the stadium and land use fight.
Assembly Bill 2512, introduced on Feb. 20, 2026, would tweak the Surplus Land Act with a special exemption that requires any “materials” tied to a sale or lease of Angel Stadium to refer to the club as the “Anaheim Angels,” according to the bill text on the California Legislative Information site. The measure, amended on March 19, 2026, also spells out that this naming rule would not kick in if the city and the team hammer out their own separate affiliation agreement.
Assemblymember Valencia has branded the proposal the “Home Run for Anaheim Act,” pitching it as a way to give residents a stronger say in how the stadium site gets used and to make sure Anaheim gets credit when development happens on the property. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken has asked the city attorney to “explore whether the Angels have violated their current lease” by removing Anaheim from legal filings.
How the Measure Would Work
The bill uses the Surplus Land Act exemption process as its main leverage point. If Anaheim secures an exemption to dispose of the publicly owned stadium property, the city could then require that any sale or lease paperwork list the club as the “Anaheim Angels.” That conditional setup, which links naming rules to the administrative exemption instead of directly rewriting lease language, is the heart of the proposal, according to reporting from Sports Business Journal.
Lease Timeline and Leverage
How much practical leverage Anaheim has depends heavily on who controls the ballpark and for how long. The California State Auditor reports that the current lease runs through Dec. 31, 2032, with the Angels holding options that could extend the arrangement through 2038. That long-term deal, combined with failed talks in 2019 over a sale or redevelopment of the surrounding parking lots and other land, helps explain why lawmakers are now looking at a legislative workaround instead of relying only on litigation or direct negotiations.
City Reaction and What Comes Next
Supporters argue the bill would give Anaheim a real-world check on any future overhaul of the roughly 150-acre stadium site, since tying naming rights to land deals could influence how any redevelopment plays out. Several local leaders were involved in shaping the bill’s language. The proposal still has to clear committees and win floor votes in Sacramento before it can change state law, and city attorneys will decide whether to pursue any lease-related claims of their own. Those steps could stretch the naming and stadium dispute beyond baseball and deeper into state politics, Sports Business Journal reported.
Legal Context
The current fight is layered on top of a long legal history. Roughly two decades ago, when the club tried to market itself as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the city sued, arguing that the team had violated a lease clause that required Anaheim’s name. A jury ultimately found that the franchise had not breached that provision. AB 2512 aims to sidestep that path by making any naming requirement a condition of securing a surplus land exemption, rather than a direct lease mandate, language that is spelled out in the bill text on the California Legislative Information site.
For now, the Angels remain at Angel Stadium under a lease that keeps the team tied to the property for years unless the options change or a new deal is cut. AB 2512 would give Anaheim an additional tool in that relationship. If the city secures a Surplus Land Act exemption and moves ahead with a sale or lease, Sacramento lawmakers could require the team to officially carry the city’s name again, shifting the long-running argument over the ballpark into both city hall and the state Capitol.
