mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I'm confused. So why couldn't the city have forced their will during the last negotiations? So they have no say until Disney agrees to a gate tax and then suddenly they have all the control?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim
- Thread starter the.dreamfinder
- Start date
I'm confused. So why couldn't the city have forced their will during the last negotiations? So they have no say until Disney agrees to a gate tax and then suddenly they have all the control?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disney could not have stopped the City from enacting a tax. They were proactive and sought an agreement before there was support for such a tax in the government.
Where Disney and their [now gone] supporters really erred was in selling the idea of Disney going about their business no differently as some sort of win for the City.
D
Deleted member 107043
I don't follow Anaheim politics (because zzzz), but from what I can tell after a quick skim through news articles and reading posts here, Disney contributes to local politicians and PACs who are friendly to the company and support its business objectives in Anaheim. Maybe a local with a better understanding of the situation can elaborate, but it appears that a handful of new City Council members were elected in 2016 breaking the balance of power supporting Disney. Whether or not this was a voter referendum against Disney and the City Council in the wake of the gate tax deal I don't know, but it sure looks like it might have been.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-campaign-finance/
The balance of power in Anaheim is shifting and could shape growth and development at DLR for decades.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-campaign-finance/
The balance of power in Anaheim is shifting and could shape growth and development at DLR for decades.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ball’s in Disney’s court on that one. Nobody forced Disney to demand municipalities compete against one another for the second gate. No one forced Disney to enter into an agreement to build a second gate that they had to build. Disney didn’t need a promise of no ticket taxes to justify building Galaxy’s Edge, whatever they do with Marvel and Frozen. They also did not need tax credits to build a new hotel to finally capitalize on the increasing number of tourists coming to the resort district that would be a surefire success.
And it’s certainly not the City of Anaheim’s fault multiple DLR presidents have refused to build an additional parking structure; a component of Disney’s 1990 master plan.
Disney has and always will set its future, the City of Anaheim can at best respond in these matters.
flynnibus
Premium Member
disney hadn't been as active in it's lobbying and some people have turned on Disney. The election cycle is relatively short in Anaheim. 4 year terms, max of two terms. In 2016 the city changed from 'at large' city council members to people who have to live in the district they represent. This shifts things a bit and will take some time to sort out. But this kind of ebb and flow of the city towards Disney is not anything really new. Thinking this will impact Disney for decades is kind of hyperbolic.
Disney getting their @$%@$ together about parking is far more impactful and getting that plan back on track is what is critical.
Disney getting their @$%@$ together about parking is far more impactful and getting that plan back on track is what is critical.
flynnibus
Premium Member
True, but every heavy hitter corp isn't going to do stuff for free and ignore the government when it can win some concessions for doing what it needs to do anyways.
Amazon can build it's HQ2 anywhere it wants... but instead its going to let many areas woo and offer them free candy to do what they already needed to do.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The City Council’s ability to act against Disney’s development plans is limited. Denying Disney zoning and occupancy approval as a sort of stick will just invite expensive litigation that will not likely bear fruit for the City. The Eastern Gateway became special because of the encroachment.
Of course. That’s why Bay Lake, Lake Buena Vista, Reedy Creek Improvement District and the EPCOT building code exist.
Disney just isn’t good at understanding its needs and if it doesn’t know what to ask for, it’ll blow its largesse for a pittance.
For example, the parking problem. Does Disneyland have a parking problem or a guest circulation problem? Why is it that every Magic Kingdom in world class cities like Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong and Shanghai have mass transit stops but DLR, just south of LA, doesn’t have one? TDA knows a lot about its guests and odds are they know where guests who park in Mickey and Friends and the Toy Story lot are coming from. Disney did try to extract a transit project out of Anaheim, but it was such a clunker it wouldn’t have been eligible for federal funding dollars. However, the need for mass transit options persists. So, shouldn’t Disney be pushing for the expansion of the LA Metro to Orange County and use its influence to determine the route and stops with a public-private partnership where each side wins?
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Ehh... you're talking Mars and Venus here. You can't put LA mass transit in the same breath as cities like Paris, Tokyo, etc.
Even if the transit was there, it wouldn't dominate the visitor patterns in a tourist destination in Orange County. I have a lot of views on Disney's parking problem, and lack of a metro/rail connection is probably half way down or lower. Disneyland isn't a lynch-pin in changing the role of mass transit in SoCal.
Those cities’ public transit systems weren’t as adversely effected, from an urban planning perspective, by the car as LA was. LA pretty much had to rebuild from nothing and mass transit’s going to play a considerable role in LA County’s future thanks to long term local funding comittments. Disney can’t just think about today when it comes to these issues.
APs and locals, and I use that term in a narrower sense than Disney does, are the primary users of the parking structure. Price increases/eliminating free parking haven’t fixed the problem, a better way to get to the resort might.
D
Deleted member 107043
This times 1,000.
It makes complete sense that Disney would try to negotiate favorable deals, but it also makes sense that Anaheim and Orange County would try to negotiate the best terms for their communities. It's ironic how companies like Disney flaunt their corporate strength built on a free enterprise system yet have no problem lobbying the public for handouts.
They touch on the tax incentives to build 4 star luxury hotels. This is a program that Anaheim put forth to encourage building more high end hotels. It is available to all developers. Why is Disney singled out for availing itself of this program?
The parking structure financing deal is pretty common as municipalities can float bonds cheaper that corporations can. Seems like the city and bond issuers made some errors in structure and how to release money but the article does say that they are running a surplus and that is what they want from this investment.
Disney needs to make an investment in the new parking infrastructure which most importantly has to continue to build security. The businesses on Harbor are doing what they need to do to make the politics work for them. Paint Disney as the bad guy. This stuff happens around all big developments; everyone wants a handout.
The Oakland A's announced where they want to build and the various groups are already posturing in an effort to extract some sort of accommodation. It will be a cost of the development.
The parking structure financing deal is pretty common as municipalities can float bonds cheaper that corporations can. Seems like the city and bond issuers made some errors in structure and how to release money but the article does say that they are running a surplus and that is what they want from this investment.
Disney needs to make an investment in the new parking infrastructure which most importantly has to continue to build security. The businesses on Harbor are doing what they need to do to make the politics work for them. Paint Disney as the bad guy. This stuff happens around all big developments; everyone wants a handout.
The Oakland A's announced where they want to build and the various groups are already posturing in an effort to extract some sort of accommodation. It will be a cost of the development.
Part Two is up, see page one.
The following quote pretty much sums up the conversation here.
Some former Disney executives, including Jeff Kurtti, believe that the company is being scrutinized for pursuing deals that any blue-chip firm would seek. In some ways, he and others said, Disney is a victim of its own carefully crafted wholesome image.
“It’s almost as if Mickey Mouse went and wrote checks for campaign funding,” said Kurtti, who consults for the company. “I think it is a contradictory image that hits people in the wrong way.”
The following quote pretty much sums up the conversation here.
Some former Disney executives, including Jeff Kurtti, believe that the company is being scrutinized for pursuing deals that any blue-chip firm would seek. In some ways, he and others said, Disney is a victim of its own carefully crafted wholesome image.
“It’s almost as if Mickey Mouse went and wrote checks for campaign funding,” said Kurtti, who consults for the company. “I think it is a contradictory image that hits people in the wrong way.”
D
Deleted member 107043
I would take it a bit further and say that the company's legacy as a strong advocate of environmental design supported by free enterprise and innovation are at play too. The Reedy Creek deal, for instance, was done, in part, because Disney promised the state that it was going to literally build an experimental city of the future. It was to be a showcase and think tank for new technologies with an elaborate transportation network linking workplaces, public spaces, commercial districts, and housing. When comparing the current situation in Anaheim it's almost mind boggling to think that in my lifetime this was the stunning level of ambition the company reached for:
Today The Walt Disney Company, a global enterprise with an estimated net worth of around $100 billion, can't even be bothered to build needed parking infrastructure at one of its cash cow resort properties, much less share the revenue with the public that picked up the bill. The more I think about it the more I lean towards Anaheim on this issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Any money Disney loses will come directly out of customer's pockets. Of course, if Disney gains anything they will pretend they lost and money will still come out of customer's pockets. Disney's customers lose no matter what. The customers deal with less parking and higher prices or more parking and higher prices. Makes you want to give money to the little guys like Ceder Fair and Six Flags instead of the number 1 and 2 largest media companies in the world.I would take it a bit further and say that the company's legacy as a strong advocate of environmental design supported by free enterprise and innovation are at play too. The Reedy Creek deal, for instance, was done, in part, because Disney promised the state that it was going to literally build an experimental city of the future. It was to be a showcase and think tank for new technologies with an elaborate transportation network linking workplaces, public spaces, commercial districts, and housing. When comparing the current situation in Anaheim it's almost mind boggling to think that in my lifetime this was the stunning level of ambition the company reached for:
Today The Walt Disney Company, a global enterprise with an estimated net worth of around $100 billion, can't even be bothered to build needed parking infrastructure at one of its cash cow resort properties, much less share the revenue with the public that picked the bill. The more I think about it the more I lean towards Anaheim on the issue.
VJ
Well-Known Member
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
I know. Some would rather die than be caught dead at Six Flags. Well, there is always Adventure City down the street in Stanton.
D
Deleted member 107043
I realize this is may seem weird coming from a regular DLR poster, but I'm not much of a theme/amusement park fan. I live in California and I can count the number of times I've been to USH, Knott's and Magic Mountain on one hand (2 times, once, and once), and I've never been to Sea World or Lego Land. I've been to WDW numerous time, but never bothered to visit the theme parks outside the resort.
Besides Disneyland and DCA I can't remember the last time I visited an amusement park, and I both Six Flags and a Cedar Fair have parks within 50 miles of where I live, plus there's the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk about a 90 minute drive from here.
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
The hotel tax credit was not something that disney pushed for though. The hotel tax credit was brought up by the city council as a way to help the bleeding of high end hotels from Anaheim into surrounding cities.
Why wouldn’t Disney and any other corporation not take advantage of a credit that was offered by the city? It would be foolish not to
As for the ticket taxes, agreed they didn’t need that in order to build galaxy edge but I’m sure that visitors are glad that they did. Any tax added as an entertainment tax would just flow over to the consumer.
All this is greed and it can’t all be directed at Disney, the city already collects plenty from business and guests. All we have to do is look at the huge added city taxes places on guests when booking hotel rooms
Maybe a company like Disney shouldn’t be taking money away from children to receive a quality public education and investments in community services like police and fire. That’s where the money should be going.
If Anaheim can’t support high end hotels without subsidies, then tough .
Of course, does Disney not bear some responsibility for the poverty in Anaheim on account of the low wages it pays, which in turn sets wages for the resort district?