They do and they don't have a point here. We can look throughout O.C. and find more and less aesthetic examples of pedestrian overpasses. I guess what stands out to me is that they're saying "we don't like it" without giving any real suggestions for what they would like. Let's look at their "Design Concerns" "The proposed pedestrian bridge design is out-of-scale and out-of character with the neighboring properties and the community as a whole." I'm not sure I'm qualified to determine what's "out-of-scale", and that's actually subjective to an extent, but the neighboring properties are a mix of designs and character. "It’s clear that the aesthetics of the proposed bridge as viewed from the street are a secondary concern to Disney." That seems accurate, and realistically understandable. "The appearance of the bridge will have great importance as it will serve as an entrance to the "resort district" and become a signature image of the city of Anaheim." Did "Red" run this one past his coalition? If this will serve as an entrance, is he now excluding Camelot Inn, Fairfield Inn, Courtyard, HoJo's, etc. from the Resort District, or is it Tropicana Inn, Park Vue, the Best Western's etc. that no longer qualify? "In a community with such exciting examples of public design as the Artic Station and the Convention Center, why is the community subsidizing such a poorly designed bridge?" I'll leave this rhetoric alone for now.