c-one
Well-Known Member
This statement is considerably more "fake" than anything the LA Times published in this series.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim
- Thread starter the.dreamfinder
- Start date
choco choco
Well-Known Member
People who like to be informed and generally care about the world they live in still read newspapers. People who are open-minded and like to consider opposing points of view and carefully consider their options and are curious about trying new things care about newspaper and newpaper reviews.
Why is the LA Times article fake news but the OC Register article not?
c-one
Well-Known Member
Maybe it "didn't meet their narrative" because it didn't respond to the questions at hand. As anyone who's been stuck on a neverending email chain or confusing text message thread can attest, often the effort to *actually speak* to other humans is ultimately a lot more efficient and informative.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Sure sounds a lot worse than talking about a deal that what... tripled the the number of tourists the town gets a year? Notice how the article failed to even mention the failure/success of the deal or the trade off? Would you be embarrassed of what the resort district has become?
The article tried to paint the story of how Disney was manipulating and influencing in a nefarious way... when in fact it was not nefarious at all.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Would Disney have scrapped their entire expansion plans had Anaheim not picked up the tab on the structure? I would be embarrassed and current officials are on the terms of the deal. They could have negotiated better terms of the deal. They could have even gone 50/50 on the deal.
I did not get any impression from the article that the Times was trying to paint Disney in a nefarious light. Again they point out throughout the article how much Disney contributes to the local community.
If they really wanted to go after Disney they would have pusued the open secret that Disney owns under other names rundown apartment complexes around their current property.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That probably depends if you believe Port Disney was a real project or a con.
D
Deleted member 107043
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
I don't know of any, and I think Dr. Moreno and his buddies would jump on that info.
I do believe that Disney bought a few of the Condo's on Walnut for use by some of the Management Staff that travels, but they don't have a majority, or any real control of that Condo Complex. They might buy a few more, as some units are being placed on the market due to the banning of STR's. That is a good use to watch costs and provide lodging for a few CM's that need a place for a few months.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Your hindsight is quite spectacular. Do you feel that is the case in every business incentive deal? Or was there some reason here you think Disney was in a weaker position? You think all that effort put into the Long Beach plans were make believe?
And the current officials aren't embarrassed what the resort district has become... or even how is funded. So it's a success... what you are saying is they don't like the deal that made it real... which means they are playing "could have..." instead of calling success what it is. The deal hasn't been a burden on the city, and actually achieved its goals.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
You are fake news.
Seriously, what are you talking about?
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I never used the term "fake news". I absolutely hate that term whenever anyone from either political side uses it. Almost as much as I hate it when people patronize others for not caring about "the world" because they might disagree on various policy issues.
Did the OC Register do an article on this topic recently? I've been traveling overseas for the past three weeks and was rarely online, so if I missed it could someone please point me to it?
I still remember when the paperboy would deliver the Sunday LA Times to me and it was so heavy I could hear it "THUD!" on my front lawn from the den. He never made it to the front porch, ever. I also subscribed to the OC Register and Wall Street Journal at the same time as the Times, not because I "cared about the world", just because I liked reading and keeping up on things in my community. Also the sales circulars and coupons.
The paper in newspaper doesn't really exist anymore, and my paperboy has been replaced by my Amazon Prime guy, but we can all agree when we talk about "newspapers" we are talking about their struggling websites (and struggling business models). I honestly had no idea there were people out there reading newspaper movie reviews instead of Rotten Tomatoes scores, just as I'm surprised to learn people still read newspaper restaurant reviews instead of just checking Yelp.
All that said, I still subscribe to Sunset magazine (30+ years!) via the US Postal Service and find their restaurant and destination articles invaluable when I travel around the West.
I find Disney's ban of LA Times reporters from movie premieres to be rather petty, but it also makes me chuckle.
Last edited:
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
I posted the two OCR articles earlier...
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/14/does-disney-pay-its-fair-share-yes/
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/15/in-fact-disney-does-pay-its-fair-share/
Also, the Anaheimblog.net and Theme Park Insider addressed the biased reporting and issues.
But as I mentioned, the LA Times series was designed and written for the Progressive Liberal/Democrat/Unite HERE Union view, and to support Tait/Moreno. And it is a point that MANY different folks have stated.
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/14/does-disney-pay-its-fair-share-yes/
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/15/in-fact-disney-does-pay-its-fair-share/
Also, the Anaheimblog.net and Theme Park Insider addressed the biased reporting and issues.
But as I mentioned, the LA Times series was designed and written for the Progressive Liberal/Democrat/Unite HERE Union view, and to support Tait/Moreno. And it is a point that MANY different folks have stated.
vancee
Well-Known Member
I'm a Russian troll, sorry.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
While I don't know, and you don't either, what specifically Disney provided the LA Times, I can say for sure they didn't add them into the story. So you cannot say it was a never ending or confusing statement. But the fact that the LA Times didn't use ANY comments from Disney indicates that those comments didn't meet their narrative. So I wouldn't call that fair and balanced reporting. I'd call that a one-sided political op-ed written at a time when this topic is a hot-button issue.
And as @TP2000 has pointed out, and asked, numerous times, what would be considered it's "fair share"? The article tries to ask that question, but doesn't answer it. No one has answered it, not even on this board.
So I direct the question at you since you back the article. And don't hide behind specific projects such as M&Fs. Answer the direct questions.
Does Disney pay its "fair share" of the Anaheim taxes? And if not what is the number that is considered paying its "fair share"?
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
I find it bring back memories. I caught the first snub when the new 4th Hotel and Parking Structure was announced.
But I have been on Disney's good list of the press, and also the naughty list where you don't get the invites and phone calls returned.
It depended on who I was working for at the time, and I got excellent access sometimes, minimal access at times, and then the we won't return your phone calls moments. Sometimes the event was a mutual event, such as the Rose Bowl events, where I got great access through the Rose Bowl Committee, and loved some of the looks I got from Disney...
My favorite was the coverage of the 50th, I had decent access to the main press events, but not the backstage stuff. But then, I had an arrangement with KTLA in regards to the special May 4th event (park closed to the public), and I was allowed a guess for the live Morning TV event, and I picked Al Lutz, which was great fun to watch the Disney reps deal with him.
That said, did different divisions/viewpoints within the company contact me off the record to get their viewpoint made public. Of course, and they tried multiple times to find out how I was getting the info. As far as I know, nobody was found out and punished.
Once, I was with someone senior, and since he is retired, I will say it was the PR head, Tim O'Day. He found out I got a good piece of info that they didn't want released yet. So I was invited to lunch on Disney's Dime, where we talked, he offered me some more info and a promise of being the first to release it when they were ready to make it public, plus a story I could release immediately as a Thank You. I agreed, since it wasn't that big of a scoop.
I also have had multiple meals with OCR reporters and editors on their dime discussing Theme Parks.
I guess my best scoop was McDonald's leaving Disneyland, and I gave it to the Associated Press, which didn't make me a favorite at Disney or McDonald's at the time. I still get asked by Disney and other Parks PR staff, past and present how I got the info, and to this day, I haven't told anyone, just that someone at one company told me, and someone at the other confirmed it.
So games are played, and not just at corporations, but is a key way Government is run. Leaks are sometimes approved by someone high, to usually gauge how the public will react prior to an official announcement.
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
Here is what I KNOW. I was contacted by a non-Disney source a few months ago that they were contacted by Daniel Miller of the LA Times looking for people to interview for the story. They told me the very basics of the planned story, and did I have any suggestions as to how would be a good contact, especially on the city side. I mentioned a few, and how/why they matched the story. I also know that at least three talked to Mr. Miller, and was told the type of questions he asked. which was clearly one-sided. None of those I recommended were used in the article, and I should state, that none of my main sources are Tait/Moreno fans.
So that is the extent of my direct knowledge about the story until it got released, which I had no idea of the date planned.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Honestly Flynn you don't need to a be a complete ahole in virtually every post you have a differing opinion than someone else and trying to tell me what I meant to say. Learn how to treat people with respect. I know plenty about business negotiations between public and private.
Here is why I think Anaheim had more leverage than they demonstrated. While Disney did have competing plans for a short time in Long Beach and Anaheim, Long Beach dies in late 1991 and the nail was in the coffin in early 1992. They were not competing with Long Beach when negotiating DCA, DTD, and M&F.
Disney was lobbying for federal and state funding as early as 1991, but the deal that led to DCA and the Mickey and Friends structure was not negotiated until the mid 90's. By this time the $3 Billion WestCOT project had been scaled down to 1.4 billion. The primary reason Anaheim was willing to kick in money was they would recoup their investment in new hotel bed taxes. Disney however slashed the number of rooms when they went from WestCOT to DCA and so Anaheim had more leverage to negotiate as they would not be seeing as much in tax dollars as originally estimated.
The question was at what point would Disney abandon the project completely, delay it, or go back to the drawing board and try to look for another site outside of Anaheim, which went against their entire motive of trying to create a resort like WDW. Of course it needed to make financial sense, but they were looking for any possible way to expand their presence around Disneyland.
flynnibus
Premium Member
So you say Disney was in a weak position because they had to have 'any way' to expand around Disneyland...
Yet leading up to that time... Disney had come up with projects in both Long Beach and Virginia... and westcot... all which Disney ultimately walked away from because they couldn't get what they wanted.
So how does aniheim in the mid nineties consider the Disneyland resort concept a slam dunk where they can dictate terms? Disney already had demonstrated they would just walk away from announced projects. Disney had also demonstrated their willingness to work outside Anaheim. Anaheim knows Disney is looking to expand... and they want to ensure Anaheim stays the center of the Disney theme park universe for the west coast. I think Disney had the stronger hand there... not Anaheim.
Yet leading up to that time... Disney had come up with projects in both Long Beach and Virginia... and westcot... all which Disney ultimately walked away from because they couldn't get what they wanted.
So how does aniheim in the mid nineties consider the Disneyland resort concept a slam dunk where they can dictate terms? Disney already had demonstrated they would just walk away from announced projects. Disney had also demonstrated their willingness to work outside Anaheim. Anaheim knows Disney is looking to expand... and they want to ensure Anaheim stays the center of the Disney theme park universe for the west coast. I think Disney had the stronger hand there... not Anaheim.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Did I say Disney was in a weak position? No I did not. I also never said Anaheim should have considered it a "slam dunk" or that they could dictate terms. Anaheim was acting like they had no negotiating power and they had plenty.
What we know is that Disney wanted to expand and that it makes more sense if it can be done in Anaheim. In this instance Anaheim has the negotiating advantage. There are greater costs both upfront and ongoing running a resort out of two locations as opposed to one and less opportunity to maximize profits as visitors have to travel to two separate locations. Again Anaheim has a huge advantage here.
And look at the terms. Anaheim pays for the entire cost of the structure and Disney leases it for $1 a year. The structure creates revenue that Disney keeps all of not to mention gets to set the price of those using the structure. If I'm not mistaken Anaheim also paid for other infrastructure improvements including on the east side that still isn't used to their full potential. Those aren't terms the city makes unless they are begging Disney. They didn't need to beg.
I'm not saying that Anaheim should have held firm and say we aren't paying for anything. If simply feels to me that Anaheim could have secured a better deal. Obviously under different circumstances, but fast forward to now and what do you know Disney had no issues with paying for a new parking structure themselves. M&F cost what $90 million? To simplify things if Anaheim insisted Disney pay half (or say split parking revenue for a period of time) would Disney walk away from a $1.4 billion project over $45 million? I have my doubts. We'll never know.
What we know is that Disney wanted to expand and that it makes more sense if it can be done in Anaheim. In this instance Anaheim has the negotiating advantage. There are greater costs both upfront and ongoing running a resort out of two locations as opposed to one and less opportunity to maximize profits as visitors have to travel to two separate locations. Again Anaheim has a huge advantage here.
And look at the terms. Anaheim pays for the entire cost of the structure and Disney leases it for $1 a year. The structure creates revenue that Disney keeps all of not to mention gets to set the price of those using the structure. If I'm not mistaken Anaheim also paid for other infrastructure improvements including on the east side that still isn't used to their full potential. Those aren't terms the city makes unless they are begging Disney. They didn't need to beg.
I'm not saying that Anaheim should have held firm and say we aren't paying for anything. If simply feels to me that Anaheim could have secured a better deal. Obviously under different circumstances, but fast forward to now and what do you know Disney had no issues with paying for a new parking structure themselves. M&F cost what $90 million? To simplify things if Anaheim insisted Disney pay half (or say split parking revenue for a period of time) would Disney walk away from a $1.4 billion project over $45 million? I have my doubts. We'll never know.