Disney not subject to Anaheim’s ‘living wage’ ballot measure, judge rules - OCR/SCNG

[Disney Irish]

And the term 'unintended consequences' should be on the top of people's mind before they advocate for 'well we gotta start somewhere'. When your solution makes things worse, it shouldn't have been done... and certainly not just for emotional gain.

You can't solve fundamental problems by just handing out money. Not sure why everyone keeps ignoring that simple truth that shows itself everywhere...

If your town doesn't have enough modest housing - giving the same population more money simply drives up the prices for said housing.

Personally I'd like to see some type of housing price regulation put into place. But that I'm sure won't go over well with a lot of people.

And then you have the NIMBY crowd that don't want "poor housing" built near them for fear of "dropping housing prices". So there goes the majority of your new affordable housing construction.

So then what is there left to do? Unless you completely redo the entire housing market across not only the state but the country there will never be any meaningful change on that side of it.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’d say a living wage of $50 an hour is infinitely less likely than another housing reset.

I think they go hand in hand. But until there is some type of reset or some meaningful regulation to curb the out of control housing price increases nothing will change on the housing side.

I’ve always wondered how places like California and NY haven’t had a housing crash, in my mind there simply can’t be enough wealthy people to sustain million dollar home prices but somehow CA and NY haven’t crashed yet. The massive rise in housing prices in places like Vegas and Orlando make a little more sense to me because it’s primarily implants from out of state who sold their houses for a million that are driving the increases here… but who’s buying their million dollar homes that’s allowing them to move in the first place?

And there in lies the problem, when you have people from higher cost of living states move to lower cost of living states all it does is drive up the cost of living in those states. And that is the one major issue with a pure free market system, when costs aren't curbed by some force other than the market itself all it does is drive up costs without anything to stop it. And as we've seen nothing has really put a stop to housing price increases, not even the major market crash of 2007/2008.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I understand, but given housing should be a universal right, I don't think we should be leaving the cost of living to the whim of the free markets. This is where capitalism and ethics mix like oil and water.

We tried housing as a universal right in the 70s and ended up with horrific “projects” that became crime infested neighborhoods.

Personally I'd like to see some type of housing price regulation put into place. But that I'm sure won't go over well with a lot of people.

And then you have the NIMBY crowd that don't want "poor housing" built near them for fear of "dropping housing prices". So there goes the majority of your new affordable housing construction.

So then what is there left to do? Unless you completely redo the entire housing market across not only the state but the country there will never be any meaningful change on that side of it.

This is a massive problem, no one wants affordable housing in their neighborhood, not the left, not the right, not the middle class, not the rich, not even the poor. Affordable housing has a crime stigma attached thanks to the projects I mentioned above.

With wages everyone wants a solution but no one wants higher prices to pay for it, with housing everyone wants more cheap housing but no one wants the congestion, noise, and problems that come from high density housing in their neighborhood.

There is no easy solution, that’s why it’s been a problem for decades.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

We tried housing as a universal right in the 70s and ended up with horrific “projects” that became crime infested neighborhoods.

But was that a problem with the concept or the execution?

 

[flynnibus]

When your solution to the problem is "people need more money" -- That's what it means.

 

[flynnibus]

but who’s buying their million dollar homes that’s allowing them to move in the first place?

Multi-generational housing...
Roommates...
Rentals...

 

[flynnibus]

With wages everyone wants a solution but no one wants higher prices to pay for it, with housing everyone wants more cheap housing but no one wants the congestion, noise, and problems that come from high density housing in their neighborhood.

There is no easy solution, that’s why it’s been a problem for decades.

One solution that works well is requiring developers to allocate a portion of their new inventory to managed affordable housing programs. County/state programs that vet people and offer them reduced cost housing - without making it a project block. Basically 'some' units are effectively subsidized by the county/state to drive a compromise rather than expect builders to build only affordable housing.

 

[Disney Irish]

We tried housing as a universal right in the 70s and ended up with horrific “projects” that became crime infested neighborhoods.



This is a massive problem, no one wants affordable housing in their neighborhood, not the left, not the right, not the middle class, not the rich, not even the poor. Affordable housing has a crime stigma attached thanks to the projects I mentioned above.

Just like with wages everyone wants a solution but no one wants higher prices to pay for it with housing everyone wants more cheap housing but no one wants the congestion, noise, and problems that come from high density housing in their neighborhood.

And this is the stigma that needs to be overcome. The "Projects" didn't fail because of the concept, but rather the execution.

High Density housing doesn't have to be some crime infested neighborhood. They can be thriving multicultural hubs where the people who live in the area also work in the area. Heck, just the term high density just means less SFRs and more high rise construction to have more living space per footprint. That doesn't always equal affordable.

 

[Darkbeer1]

I'm still chuckling over how this whole thing fell apart for the UNITE HERE union. They wrote the ballot measure themselves, they campaigned for it, and they got it passed. But they wrote it so poorly that it didn't apply to Disneyland.

The ballot measure was that any business that receives a "City Subsidy" has to pay its employees a minimum of $18 an hour by 2022. And in their own text of the ballot the union wrote, they defined the subsidy as this...

A "City Subsidy" is any agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or unmatured.

And that was very easy to prove that the Disneyland Resort does not receive any rebate of those taxes from the city of Anaheim. We all knew that a few years ago, but the union tried to get it into court anyway. And no big surprise, the union lost in court.

Who does receive a rebate like that in Anaheim and thus is subject to this approved ballot measure, you may ask? The owners and operators of the new JWMarriott and Westin hotels. But that's not Disneyland, and those two hotels are unconnected to the Walt Disney Company.

The whole thing is hysterical.

https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/21954/2018-Initiative-Measure-Text?bidId=

Comment I posted at the Voice of OC Facebook page...

>>But it is the Unions to blame. They wrote the Language for Measure L. Heck, the first attempt was written so poorly that they stopped gathering signatures on it, and came up with the version that was finally passed. In elections, intent has no bearing. The voters approved the wording, and it is that wording that counts. The unions have failed to do their job properly, but no one wants to talk about that. Why not try and get a new, properly written Initiative on the ballot that would make it clear?<<

 

[denyuntilcaught]

When your solution to the problem is "people need more money" -- That's what it means.

Eh, it's less "people need more money" and more of "stop corporations from exploitative labor."

 

[Heppenheimer]

I’d say a living wage of $50 an hour is infinitely less likely than another housing reset.

I’ve always wondered how places like California and NY haven’t had a housing crash, in my mind there simply can’t be enough wealthy people to sustain million dollar home prices but somehow CA and NY haven’t crashed yet. The massive rise in housing prices in places like Vegas and Orlando make a little more sense to me because it’s primarily implants from out of state who sold their houses for a million that are driving the increases here… but who’s buying their million dollar homes that’s allowing them to move in the first place?

One of the problems in highly desirable housing markets, although it may not be the primary driver but it definitely compounds the issue, is the practice of using properties as investment or income-generating vehicles. This isn't just a problem in the US, it's also part of the reason why cities like Vancouver, Toronto, London, Milan and Paris have become so unaffordable. I will never stay in an AirBnB or VRBO property- I saw first-hand how these business models squeezed even what we might consider moderately affluent people out of Toronto.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

One of the problems in highly desirable housing markets, although it may not be the primary driver but it definitely compounds the issue, is the practice of using properties as investment or income-generating vehicles. This isn't just a problem in the US, it's also part of the reason why cities like Vancouver, Toronto, London, Milan and Paris have become so unaffordable. I will never stay in an AirBnB or VRBO property- I saw first-hand how these business models squeezed even what we might consider moderately affluent people out of Toronto.

This is a great point, do we really have a housing shortage or is it a fake shortage caused by investors? Maybe a “simple” solution is to limit the number of homes a person or business can own.

Some of this may even be unintended consequences of legislation, I have a friend with two rental homes, I think both are section 8 approved (one is for sure) so he gets checks every month from his tenants and larger checks every month from the government. Both have been occupied by the same families as long as I’ve known him, it’s very profitable for him and he never has to worry about rent.

 

[flynnibus]

Eh, it's less "people need more money" and more of "stop corporations from exploitative labor."

... by giving people more money.

It doesn't matter what your motivation is... your suggested action is as stated above. To which you must own the consequences of said action. Not try to deflect into 'but it makes sense morally...'

 

[flynnibus]

This is a great point, do we really have a housing shortage or is it a fake shortage caused by investors? Maybe a “simple” solution is to limit the number of homes a person or business can own.

Except in outlier cases this is a factor, but not the one that moves the needles. People talked about big fish like Zillow and their move to buying into properties for investments... but that was small numbers in the grand scheme. Like 12k homes a year.. for the entire country.

And the idea of limiting what a person can own as property will never fly.

 

[el_super]

... by giving people more money.

It doesn't matter what your motivation is... your suggested action is as stated above. To which you must own the consequences of said action. Not try to deflect into 'but it makes sense morally...'

This seems more like a cop out than any actual position. There are consequences to inaction as well, including ballot initiatives like the one were were talking about here. Disney isn't going to get any more handouts from the city because of their woefully poor wages.

Consequences go both ways.

 

[Disney Irish]

And the idea of limiting what a person can own as property will never fly.

This idea might take hold as the older generations shuffle off this mortal coil.

As Millennials and Gen-Z come more into power in this nation social issues like affordable housing will take a forefront and I expect all options are on the table.

We have to rethink a lot of things in this country, and the status quo of the older generations won't fly.

 

[flynnibus]

Consequences go both ways.

Who said otherwise?

I was responding to something - not trying to present something else.

The problems with a solution are not dependent on the pros and cons of an alternative - so they are not relevant to proving the point.

 

[flynnibus]

This idea might take hold as the older generations shuffle off this mortal coil.

As Millennials and Gen-Z come more into power in this nations social issues like affordable housing will take a forefront and I expect all options are on the table.

We have to rethink a lot of things in this country, and the status quo of the older generations won't fly.

Such a notion is not tied to agreeing about affordable housing or not - but such a proposition is a direct attack on the fundamentals of personal property and liberties.. You'd be basically be facing constitutional challenges. That's why it would never fly. It's a government intrusion that most wouldn't tolerate.

and the idea of 'keeping the government out of my buying decisions' is not some boomer-only concept.

 

[el_super]

I was responding to something - not trying to present something else.

Yeah... that was the point. You're shooting down an idea without really offering up any alternative. You seemed to suggest that unintended consequences should scare people away from taking a specific action, but failure to act can also have unintended consequences.

And in other news, water is wet.

 

[Disney Irish]

Such a notion is not tied to agreeing about affordable housing or not - but such a proposition is a direct attack on the fundamentals of personal property and liberties.. You'd be basically be facing constitutional challenges. That's why it would never fly. It's a government intrusion that most wouldn't tolerate.

and the idea of 'keeping the government out of my buying decisions' is not some boomer-only concept.

Sorry but the constitution doesn't guarantee a person is entitled to purchasing 2 or more properties. Limiting purchases of goods is something we do in this country, and is completely legal. From number of tickets for a concert to amount of a specific item that can be purchased at a store, a house is no different.

In fact in a lot of metro areas you can't buy the land anymore, as its owned by the county or state. You can only purchase the property on the land, but not the land itself. Which completely throws the constitutional definition of "property" out the window anyways, since property at the time meant land.

Any mention of rights of property in the constitution is more about illegal search and seizure by the government, not about putting limits on ones purchase of such.