D
Deleted member 107043
Are these Disney properties you're referring to? I ask because that's all I really care about.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Anaheim GardenWalk Development Status report - 10/17/2017
- Thread starter Darkbeer1
- Start date
Are these Disney properties you're referring to? I ask because that's all I really care about.
NO, this is the GardenWalk Hotels, the JW Marriott and a second non-Disney Hotel. And folks, the debate on this consent item (still going on)is showing how screwed up our current Council is,
D
Deleted member 107043
Ah ok. Thanks.
Hans, at least you can deal with a simple consent item quickly, the council is still bickering about this, since it relates to Disney and the Resort District, The motion to postponed failed 4 to3, and just passed by a 5 to 0 vote, with Tait and Moreno abstaining. So one hour of debate about simple approving a staff report...
Somewhat off topic, so I will just link to the political article, and those who want to read more about Dr, Moreno and the city...
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/10/...l-anaheim-institutionalize-identity-politics/
Somewhat off topic, so I will just link to the political article, and those who want to read more about Dr, Moreno and the city...
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/10/...l-anaheim-institutionalize-identity-politics/
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
So it seems like this mayor and some in this council just have a vendetta against anything that has to do with the resort District. Such bad leadership when a person in that power can’t do his job without taking sides either way and doing things for the good of a cities future.
Thanks for the article, very interesting. Looks like this Jose guy is not very well like
Thanks for the article, very interesting. Looks like this Jose guy is not very well like
Last edited:
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
I like Geeky Mamas. They have a life-size Jar Jar Binks.
OK, here is a link to last night's City Council meeting.
http://anaheim.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1840
Item 5, the Garden Walk Status Report, starts at 2:49 into the full meeting (you can find the time bar at the bottom of the video). and ends at 4:08.
So basically a hour and 20 minutes, to just approve a staff report that was placed on the consent calendar
It clearly shows what is wrong with the city council, and how it interacts with its staff.
http://anaheim.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1840
Item 5, the Garden Walk Status Report, starts at 2:49 into the full meeting (you can find the time bar at the bottom of the video). and ends at 4:08.
So basically a hour and 20 minutes, to just approve a staff report that was placed on the consent calendar
It clearly shows what is wrong with the city council, and how it interacts with its staff.
Last edited:
DarkMetroid567
Well-Known Member
Another article whining about identity politics? Pass.
Not an article, a video of the review of the AGW status report.
Jedi Stitch
Well-Known Member
I was on a Company trip once and we went to the Garden Walk for dinner one night. I enjoyed the place.
In today's news was this...
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/11/08/13701/
>>Apart from the satisfaction of watching Bill O’Connell puncture the overweening sanctimony that has taken residence on the council dais, the great value in his testimony was to expose these antics for what they are: staged show trials in which conducting the public business – and the ability of a private business to meet its obligations – takes a back seat to using the dais to advance political agendas.
As O’Connell told the council: “I realize there are two or three people on this council who will do anything they can to undermine this project.” And that’s exactly what Moreno and the mayor were and are trying to do, even if they won’t cop to it.<<
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/11/08/13701/
>>Apart from the satisfaction of watching Bill O’Connell puncture the overweening sanctimony that has taken residence on the council dais, the great value in his testimony was to expose these antics for what they are: staged show trials in which conducting the public business – and the ability of a private business to meet its obligations – takes a back seat to using the dais to advance political agendas.
As O’Connell told the council: “I realize there are two or three people on this council who will do anything they can to undermine this project.” And that’s exactly what Moreno and the mayor were and are trying to do, even if they won’t cop to it.<<
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Now that is throwing shade....
I hope more take on this "People's Council" for using their office to advance certain members political agendas.
Let me share this reply I got at Nextdoor over the same article. By the way, the poster is one of the current Planning Commissioners.
>>.David as you know the current Council majority has been trying to right wrongs foisted on our City by the former Council Majority headed by Kris Murray and Lucille Kring, both of whom fought tooth and nail to keep us from having District elections in an attempt to maintain the Disney controlled former Council majority. Voters backing our Mayor bounced one of former council majority members and went on to defeat the other heavily backed by Disney candidates in Districts One and Three. Former Councils kept monies from the General fund to pour into the Disney corridor even though the bond passed by the electorate specifically stated that the money was to be shared throughout Anaheim. When Council member Moreno brought this up at a Council meeting even though council member Kring told him he was wrong,she said she was shocked to learn he was right. All Kring needed to do was ask one of several of us long time residents and we could have set her straight. This has cost west Anaheim millions of dollars over the years earmarked for infrastructure and services that was ALL dumped into the "resort area" instead . We couldn't have better people watching out for us than the current Council Majority.<<
So for those who want to know why Disney gave up the Eastern Gateway for now....
More from the article...
>>What followed was a disturbing exercise in arbitrary, capricious governance by Moreno and Mayor Tom Tait. Both have campaigned for years against a “$158 million giveaway” – a reference to the separate economic assistance agreement which rebates 70% of the bed tax collected at the GardenWalk hotels back to the owners for 20 years. The item was pulled so they could, in Councilwoman Kris Murray’s words, “torture the developer for sport.”
The staff attested the developer was in compliance and recommended a “yes” vote. Indeed, there was no indication or evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind the TOT rebate agreement was not on the agenda – only the entirely separate development agreement.
A “no” vote would have required the city to present findings to that effect, plus give the developer the opportunity to cure those deficiencies.
Moreno said he hadn’t had a chance to read the development agreement and wanted to continue the item for a week, until the next council meeting. Tait concurred, saying the item was “brought to us with not a lot of notice.” and that he had only received the information for the item the Friday before. However, since the deadline had already passed for holding this vote, further delaying the compliance vote without the consent of the developer would automatically put the city out of compliance – not to mention placing the developer in limbo.<<
>>.David as you know the current Council majority has been trying to right wrongs foisted on our City by the former Council Majority headed by Kris Murray and Lucille Kring, both of whom fought tooth and nail to keep us from having District elections in an attempt to maintain the Disney controlled former Council majority. Voters backing our Mayor bounced one of former council majority members and went on to defeat the other heavily backed by Disney candidates in Districts One and Three. Former Councils kept monies from the General fund to pour into the Disney corridor even though the bond passed by the electorate specifically stated that the money was to be shared throughout Anaheim. When Council member Moreno brought this up at a Council meeting even though council member Kring told him he was wrong,she said she was shocked to learn he was right. All Kring needed to do was ask one of several of us long time residents and we could have set her straight. This has cost west Anaheim millions of dollars over the years earmarked for infrastructure and services that was ALL dumped into the "resort area" instead . We couldn't have better people watching out for us than the current Council Majority.<<
So for those who want to know why Disney gave up the Eastern Gateway for now....
More from the article...
>>What followed was a disturbing exercise in arbitrary, capricious governance by Moreno and Mayor Tom Tait. Both have campaigned for years against a “$158 million giveaway” – a reference to the separate economic assistance agreement which rebates 70% of the bed tax collected at the GardenWalk hotels back to the owners for 20 years. The item was pulled so they could, in Councilwoman Kris Murray’s words, “torture the developer for sport.”
The staff attested the developer was in compliance and recommended a “yes” vote. Indeed, there was no indication or evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind the TOT rebate agreement was not on the agenda – only the entirely separate development agreement.
A “no” vote would have required the city to present findings to that effect, plus give the developer the opportunity to cure those deficiencies.
Moreno said he hadn’t had a chance to read the development agreement and wanted to continue the item for a week, until the next council meeting. Tait concurred, saying the item was “brought to us with not a lot of notice.” and that he had only received the information for the item the Friday before. However, since the deadline had already passed for holding this vote, further delaying the compliance vote without the consent of the developer would automatically put the city out of compliance – not to mention placing the developer in limbo.<<
let me add, Measure B passed by a 74% vote, only a majority was required.
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-11/local/me-52816_1_statewide-ballot-measure
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-11/local/me-52816_1_statewide-ballot-measure
My reply to the Planning Commissioner...
The voters never voted on the bond, which was approved in July 1995 by the city Council. The 2016 election, in which a majority was needed, but got 74% of the vote approved the 2% TOT increase (From 13% to 15%), and nothing more. Read the actual question (Measure 1, which became B on the ballot in the link below.
http://www.anaheimblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Measure-B-ballot-question-and-arguments.pdf
And from the LA Times...
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-11/local/me-52816_1_statewide-ballot-measure
>> The ink is still drying on the city's agreement with Disneyland for a $1.4-billion expansion, but nervous officials have already begun worrying about the next obstacle that could stand in the way: Measure B.
The initiative, which will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot, asks voters to retroactively approve a raise of 2 percentage points in hotel bed taxes imposed 15 months ago to help pay for Anaheim's share of the Disney and Anaheim Convention Center expansion projects. The increase brought the city's bed tax rate to 15%.
That increase generates $9 million a year and is "the primary source of funding" for the project's upgrades, said Mayor Tom Daly, who doubts the city could pay for them any other way.
"I just don't know where it would come from," Daly said Thursday. "This measure puts the entire [Disney] agreement at risk."<<
>>This week, the council unanimously approved the expansion agreement with Disney, committing the city to pay up to $546 million for improvements related to the project and to a major expansion of the Convention Center. The new deal requires the city to upgrade streets, landscaping and utilities, as well as build a $90-million parking garage.
The city plans to issue $395 million in bonds to finance much of the work. Increased revenue from hotel taxes is expected to help pay off the bonds, along with sales taxes from tourists and property tax revenue generated within the Disneyland Resort area. Disney has agreed to step in and pay the bond debt in case of a shortfall in expected revenue.<<
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/05/17/morenos-false-narrative-measure-b-anaheim-resort/
>>The 2% TOT increase and the Resort revitalization to which it was inextricably tied were dominant civic affairs issues in Anaheim for years. The Anaheim City Council approved it in late 1994, after a great deal of public discussion and input, specifically for fund the Anaheim Resort revitalization. The council voted in 1996 to place it on the ballot for the explicit purpose of protecting the funding source for the Anaheim Resort revitalization.
Yet, Councilman Moreno argues that since the Measure B ballot question doesn’t mention the Resort project, the entire context within which the election took place — the multiple public hearings, the council votes, the media coverage, the Measure B ballot arguments and campaign — didn’t exist. We’re asked to believe the Measure B election occurred in an information vacuum. According to Moreno’s logic, the repeated enunciated reasons given by the elected city council for enacting the 2% TOT increase are superseded by a ballot measure that affirmed those reasons.
Let’s look at it another way. In 2014, 70% of Anaheim voters approved Measure L, shifting the city to by-district elections. The ballot question made no mention of creating council districts purposely designed to elect Latino councilmembers. Neither did the ballot argument nor the Yes on L campaign mail. Yet, when the time came, Measure L proponents practically rioted and shut down a council meeting in order to obtain a map with three district drawn to elect Latinos. Would Councilman Moreno characterize that as illegitimate since the ballot question before the voters made no mention of creating ethnically-based council districts?
One cannot review the public record and reasonably, logically claim Anaheim voters were unaware the 2% TOT increase was enacted to fund the Anaheim Resort revitalization and that passage of Measure B was necessary to keep the project moving forward. Moreno is conflating a moral and political commitment with a legally-binding obligation. The 2% TOT increase was not a special tax and its revenues go into the general fund. However, it is equally true that it was enacted for a specific purpose and placed before the voters to protect that purpose. Perhaps most remarkably of all is that for more than 20 years, successive city council have honored a commitment without being legally obligated to do so.<<
And as for this statement..."This has cost west Anaheim millions of dollars over the years earmarked for infrastructure and services that was ALL dumped into the "resort area" instead ."
Nothing was EVER earmarked. the tot taxes have paid off the bond payments, and then send the rest to the General fund for projects throughout the district.
I believe you are confusing the special 2% ATID assessment agreed to by the Hotel owners in the Resort District, that is an additional 2% above the 15% charged, and approved in 2010.
https://www.anaheim.net/565/Anaheim-Tourism-Improvement-District-ATI
>>On September 14, 2010, the Anaheim City Council established the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) as a means of providing the necessary resources to enhance tourism activity and increase hotel room stays. The ATID establishes an assessment of 2% of the room rent for all hotel facilities located within the ATID boundaries (Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle).
This assessment is not a tax for the general benefit of the City; rather it is an assessment for activities that provide benefits directly to those hotels within the ATID. The following links will provide you with information on the proper collection and remittance of the ATID as well as background information, including the ATID boundaries and complete list of hotels within the district.<<
The voters never voted on the bond, which was approved in July 1995 by the city Council. The 2016 election, in which a majority was needed, but got 74% of the vote approved the 2% TOT increase (From 13% to 15%), and nothing more. Read the actual question (Measure 1, which became B on the ballot in the link below.
http://www.anaheimblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Measure-B-ballot-question-and-arguments.pdf
And from the LA Times...
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-11/local/me-52816_1_statewide-ballot-measure
>> The ink is still drying on the city's agreement with Disneyland for a $1.4-billion expansion, but nervous officials have already begun worrying about the next obstacle that could stand in the way: Measure B.
The initiative, which will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot, asks voters to retroactively approve a raise of 2 percentage points in hotel bed taxes imposed 15 months ago to help pay for Anaheim's share of the Disney and Anaheim Convention Center expansion projects. The increase brought the city's bed tax rate to 15%.
That increase generates $9 million a year and is "the primary source of funding" for the project's upgrades, said Mayor Tom Daly, who doubts the city could pay for them any other way.
"I just don't know where it would come from," Daly said Thursday. "This measure puts the entire [Disney] agreement at risk."<<
>>This week, the council unanimously approved the expansion agreement with Disney, committing the city to pay up to $546 million for improvements related to the project and to a major expansion of the Convention Center. The new deal requires the city to upgrade streets, landscaping and utilities, as well as build a $90-million parking garage.
The city plans to issue $395 million in bonds to finance much of the work. Increased revenue from hotel taxes is expected to help pay off the bonds, along with sales taxes from tourists and property tax revenue generated within the Disneyland Resort area. Disney has agreed to step in and pay the bond debt in case of a shortfall in expected revenue.<<
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/05/17/morenos-false-narrative-measure-b-anaheim-resort/
>>The 2% TOT increase and the Resort revitalization to which it was inextricably tied were dominant civic affairs issues in Anaheim for years. The Anaheim City Council approved it in late 1994, after a great deal of public discussion and input, specifically for fund the Anaheim Resort revitalization. The council voted in 1996 to place it on the ballot for the explicit purpose of protecting the funding source for the Anaheim Resort revitalization.
Yet, Councilman Moreno argues that since the Measure B ballot question doesn’t mention the Resort project, the entire context within which the election took place — the multiple public hearings, the council votes, the media coverage, the Measure B ballot arguments and campaign — didn’t exist. We’re asked to believe the Measure B election occurred in an information vacuum. According to Moreno’s logic, the repeated enunciated reasons given by the elected city council for enacting the 2% TOT increase are superseded by a ballot measure that affirmed those reasons.
Let’s look at it another way. In 2014, 70% of Anaheim voters approved Measure L, shifting the city to by-district elections. The ballot question made no mention of creating council districts purposely designed to elect Latino councilmembers. Neither did the ballot argument nor the Yes on L campaign mail. Yet, when the time came, Measure L proponents practically rioted and shut down a council meeting in order to obtain a map with three district drawn to elect Latinos. Would Councilman Moreno characterize that as illegitimate since the ballot question before the voters made no mention of creating ethnically-based council districts?
One cannot review the public record and reasonably, logically claim Anaheim voters were unaware the 2% TOT increase was enacted to fund the Anaheim Resort revitalization and that passage of Measure B was necessary to keep the project moving forward. Moreno is conflating a moral and political commitment with a legally-binding obligation. The 2% TOT increase was not a special tax and its revenues go into the general fund. However, it is equally true that it was enacted for a specific purpose and placed before the voters to protect that purpose. Perhaps most remarkably of all is that for more than 20 years, successive city council have honored a commitment without being legally obligated to do so.<<
And as for this statement..."This has cost west Anaheim millions of dollars over the years earmarked for infrastructure and services that was ALL dumped into the "resort area" instead ."
Nothing was EVER earmarked. the tot taxes have paid off the bond payments, and then send the rest to the General fund for projects throughout the district.
I believe you are confusing the special 2% ATID assessment agreed to by the Hotel owners in the Resort District, that is an additional 2% above the 15% charged, and approved in 2010.
https://www.anaheim.net/565/Anaheim-Tourism-Improvement-District-ATI
>>On September 14, 2010, the Anaheim City Council established the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) as a means of providing the necessary resources to enhance tourism activity and increase hotel room stays. The ATID establishes an assessment of 2% of the room rent for all hotel facilities located within the ATID boundaries (Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle).
This assessment is not a tax for the general benefit of the City; rather it is an assessment for activities that provide benefits directly to those hotels within the ATID. The following links will provide you with information on the proper collection and remittance of the ATID as well as background information, including the ATID boundaries and complete list of hotels within the district.<<
SSG
Well-Known Member
Speaking of Gardenwalk, it seems to be up for grabs again.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/09/anaheims-gardenwalk-mall-on-the-market-again/
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/09/anaheims-gardenwalk-mall-on-the-market-again/
Ismael Flores
Well-Known Member
It really is amazing that Disney has not considered buying that land.
Maybe they can go ahead and buy it now and use the available area for condos over the parking structure.
It would be at the perfect location for more Disney vacation club rooms.
If and when the city council gets dumped for a more preferable group they can continue with their parking structure and east gateway plan and connect the mall via a bridge to the structure. It could really be turned into their downtown Disney east with more entertainment since it would not directly impact the other three hotels and their family crowd that now walk thru the existing downtown Disney.
would the purchase of the mall also include the parking structure attached to it? That would be another source of parking without having to deal with other owners of the property
Maybe they can go ahead and buy it now and use the available area for condos over the parking structure.
It would be at the perfect location for more Disney vacation club rooms.
If and when the city council gets dumped for a more preferable group they can continue with their parking structure and east gateway plan and connect the mall via a bridge to the structure. It could really be turned into their downtown Disney east with more entertainment since it would not directly impact the other three hotels and their family crowd that now walk thru the existing downtown Disney.
would the purchase of the mall also include the parking structure attached to it? That would be another source of parking without having to deal with other owners of the property