I don't understand the article.
First of all, he groups all Annual Passholders together - mistake. Not every Annual Passholder is the same. Demons running through the parks? Um... okay...
Honestly, I think if it weren't for annual passholders, Disney would be cutting back more than it does. A great percentage of annual passholders notice changes (let's say... oh... the slow removal of live entertainment). If these groups didn't write to Disney against the removal of entertainers, then a big chunk of what defines Disney would be gone. And it's safe to say those without annual passes would find these groups delighting, based on the audience member, of course.
Or in the case of the lack of paint coats, if certain Annual Passholders didn't complain, management might not be painting. ...which might leave the regular visitor without a pass (who likely took more of his expenses out to pay for the trip) to notice some of the decay, concluding that the park has lowered its quality standards and consider other options for vacation investment. (Of course, Ouitmet just shut most of the attractions down and had the services rebuilt and repaint them, so it's probably no longer an issue).
I think the article needs to accuse less and explain more - good examples of how Annual Passholders have hurt Disney. I could only find one: the Enchanted Tiki Room, which is only the author's opinion. (If it weren't from the pressure of fans, it would still be rotting and decaying now, if not turned into McDonalds). If anything, those same AP holders have been asking the company to open up new attractions in what has been cutback (see: Tomorrowland). . .
Lastly, he is attacking the passholders, not Disney for offering the passes. If he believes them to be harmful, he'd be better off writing to Disney or suggesting they end these ticket sales.
No matter WHO enters the park, I think it's in good hands anyway. Matt Ouimet is opening up to both the diehards AND the infrequent visitors. He caters to both with quality, and that's what I care about.