True, I’m just not convinced honesty matters all that much in the context we’re discussing. At the end of the day, I place more emphasis on quality than honesty. DCA has a lot of issues, but those issues are a lack of high-quality rides and attractions and disjointed theming - not “dishonesty.”
I guess it just comes down to each individuals, personal expectation of the park(s), their own experiences and what it means to them/how they interpret it.
Someone whose born today and or starts to visit a park like DCA for the first time nowadays, will have an entirely different reality formed around them of what DCA is and means as a park. In that individual's case, the disjointed-ness of the park and overall lack of direction will just sort of be the way things are. I can understand that.
But what each individual feels when it comes to feeling like they've been taken for a ride is subjective, I guess, too. In the literal sense, you're onto something about them not being "literally" dishonest. For the most part, Disney announces their intention to build something, does so and folks are free to take it or leave it. Most of the time.
But while Disney never explicitly promises us something along the lines of "the Tower of Terror will be here forever", I still think it's fair for certain folks with longer history with the park and who have watched it evolve two or three times over the past 20 years to feel like they were "baited and switched" to an extent with the sudden shift in direction the park has taken in recent years. It's okay for those folks to feel that disappointment and it's hard for them to not apply the term to the park given the way they feel, even if in the "literal" sense, it may not be
entirely accurate.
Take into account that most folks who feel this way watched an objectively poorly built park open. Disney acknowledges this after close to a decade of waiting and beings to show off concept art for the future of the park circa 2012. Said artwork is seen mostly as a giant improvement for these folks that both integrates Disney's desire for more name brand but also in a strategically chosen way that will embrace the infrastructure and core of the park that they've already built (stuff like Grizzly Peak, the Grand Californian, etc.) in a way that makes sense (more or less). Both sides are happy.
However, as the years go by, certain projects with anticipated Blue Sky models and concept art never materialize. Instead, the park seemingly shifts it's focus away from building things that would further "bind" the park it looked like they were starting to build together and Disney begins to immediately hit us with a series of curveballs whose only seemingly evident explanation for being there is to "cash in" as quickly as possible on whatever is making the most money at the time.
In a way, you're technically right. It's not like Disney "didn't" say they wouldn't go this route. They didn't "technically" lie. They just dangled something highly desirable in the face of long time visitors to the park and then just when we starting to enjoy it, immediately pulled it away. -and while that's not "technically" lying, you can see how a subsect of Guests could interpret it that way and be understandably frustrated with that decision.
Additionally, new things Disney has decided to replace the former with, are subjectively not as good or of the same quality as what they were doing before, further frustrating these Guests.
Like you, I feel that if they're going to continue down this path, I'd rather they rip the band-aid off now and do away with any semblance of the "California" theme or name. Or give the term new meaning (such as making sure each offered ride or show is only available here in CA). Or better integrate their characters and brands into the park as a whole. This is Disney we're talking about, so we know they've got the talent and the money to do either thing and do it really well. The question is, will they and if so, when? I think those unanswered questions just further frustrate some of us.