Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
One thing I know for sure is whatever the truth really is, regarding who is more at fault, and what the actual story is between Disney and the city, we certainly won't get it from the LA Times.
-
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
Disney Irish
Premium Member
That's not entirely true. So while the City contributed nothing to the stadium itself, they contributed a lot to the process. For example they spent $15 Million to reroute Muni. Add that to the fact the Giants paid $0 for the land, all donated by the City, which is estimated at the time to be worth $33 Million. Then add that with the tax exemption due to no property taxes, worth about $83 Million. And finally the "free" public services, such as fire, police, garbage, etc worth $25 Million. So that not paying a dime for the stadium cost the City at least $142 Million.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4591
D
Deleted member 107043
Thanks for clarifying. Muni would have been rerouted anyway because of Mission Bay. All that said SF didn't give away the farm in the same way Anaheim did.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
My point is that municipalities will pay in one form or another. Either through loss of revenue due to tax breaks or through other financial terms such as direct financing or public services. This idea that some municipalities pay nothing and get all the gains for something is false and will never happen.
D
Deleted member 107043
Not disputing you on this, and I conceded to you on this point. However, I still stand by my point that some deals are better for municipalities than others, and there's no disputing that some of the deals worked out between Disney and the City of Anaheim for the development of the Disneyland Resort were grossly lopsided in favor of Disney.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
While this may be true, Anaheim only has themselves to blame with regards to their negotiations. But its not like they are the only company to get incentives. Municipalities all the time compete to have businesses come in. So why wouldn't any company negotiate to get the best deal, if the city planners were skilled they would be negotiating to get the best deal for the city. But most don't they just give in to most companies demands in hopes for downstream revenue coming into the the city.
I agree with TP, Disney should just write a check for M&F construction cost, they can even use 2017 inflated dollars, and be done with it. Then they have nothing to complain about. Because the rest of the bond the city took out was to pay for other improvements to the Resort District. Which includes the Convention Center that Disney gets no direct income from and goes directly into the city coffers. And in reality part of the big reason Anaheim has a large Convention business is because of the draw of Disney. So Disney should say, hey we'll pay off the bond for you if you give us a percentage of the Convention Center intake.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Not quite... The city didn't pay for the structure, but like Disney did here, they got concessions from the government in return for agreeing to build. Tax exclusions are usually the biggest ways government try to swoon private entities... followed by financing things through the government bonds which is much much cheaper due to the interest rates gov bonds pay.
Much like Disney cut the deal to earn the amusement tax concessions and got the government to pay for the infrastructure/transportation needs.
The $1 lease element is kind of extreme, but not uncommon. Basically, its just like the other infrastructure improvements the city did, but this one can be monetized (unlike a regular street, sidewalk, etc) so they worked out the lease. Ownership after the 40yrs is just a way for the city to obsolve themselves of the inevitable future capital renovations that would be needed.
flynnibus
Premium Member
really? Disney spent nearly a decade with a albatross (that they paid for) and then spent another billion plus to fix it. While Anaheim didn't suffer nearly the same negative impact from the Resort District revamp, the Convention Center work, etc.
I think people are focusing too much on one element in the deal and are forgetting the entire Resort District model is pretty much a knockout win for Anaheim... minus Disney's gaft on fixing future parking needs for the last 10 years.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
The issue isn't what those cities are now, the issue is what those cities were in 1955. In 1954-56, as Disneyland was under construction and so new it hadn't yet impacted the local socio-economic trends, Anaheim was being turned into small and affordable 2 and 3 bedroom ranch homes as fast as the bulldozers could churn under the orange groves. The same thing was playing out in other OC flatland cities like Stanton, Buena Park, Garden Grove, etc. These types of neighborhoods, which are now lower-middle class and sometimes crime-riddled, were springing up quickly all over central Anaheim west of I-5 in the mid 1950's.
Absent Walt Disney purchasing the Disneyland acreage in 1953, the land Disneyland is on would have become similar small tract homes with perhaps a small shopping center or two at the intersection of Katella and Harbor. Nothing more, nothing less.
And then the macro socio-economic trends that took place from the late 1960's through the late 1990's would have unfolded there while Disneyland operated in Pomona or elsewhere, and in the 21st century the land now known as the Anaheim Resort District would have looked exactly like the land a mile west of it near Katella and Brookhurst. But likely even shabbier and downscale absent Disneyland pumping a big chunk of the taxes into the local economy for decades.
That intersection of Katella and Brookhurst looked like this in 1957...
And that same intersection area looks like this in 2017...
Glamorous it is not. And also incapable of generating $172 Million in taxes every year and providing 43% of Anaheim's annual tax revenue. Much less employ 30,000 people.
But that's what the corner of Katella and Harbor would have looked like today had Walt chosen Pomona instead of Anaheim. You'd miss out on hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and philanthropy every year, but you could get a $20 pedicure and some medicinal marijuana.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
My point exactly, the entire argument that Disneyland does not pay a "fair share" of local taxes is always based on that damn parking structure.
Michael Eisner was let go. The 1990's are over. Iger should just write a check for $200 Million to Anaheim and buy that structure outright. Anaheim gets a huge cash windfall, Disney owns the structure and it takes the sole remaining argument that Disneyland is a moocher off the table.
Eisner may have thought he was smart playing the civic investment tax break game that EVERYONE plays at one time or another, but 20 years later it's just not worth the headache. Buy that stupid parking garage and be done with it.
Then try and make a rational argument that a local employer who pays 43% of the city's annual general fund in taxes isn't paying a "fair share". It's an argument that simply can't be made.
And again I say, why is it that whenever anyone claims someone rich or successful isn't paying a "fair share", they can never tell you what a fair share actually should be. Bernie Sanders did it, protesting college kids do it, and now this LA Times writer has done it to Disneyland. But we never get a dollar figure of what the "fair share" actually is, we are just told the successful businesses are too greedy and too successful and aren't doing enough for you. It's quite telling they can never tell you what a "fair share" of taxes and payments actually is.
D
Deleted member 107043
That may be true, but I think you're kind of missing the point here, which is that Disney's relationship with local residents and the City of Anaheim has deteriorated in part because the city gave away the farm a few years ago in exchange for a billion dollars in Disney development over the next decade.
That deal seems have triggered considerable animosity among Anaheim citizens. The first sign of resistance occurred earlier this year when nearby businesses howled at the terrible Eastern Gateway proposal and the City Council and Mayor refused to rubber stamp Disney's plan. Yesterday's LA Times feature story shouldn't be news to you or anyone else here who closely follows DLR developments.
D
Deleted member 107043
Do you think Disney's most recent deal with Anaheim is fair for its citizens? Just curious.
shortstop
Well-Known Member
I'd ask why Disneyland is obligated to pay a gate tax. If Disneyland didn't exist, this would be a nonissue. It's not like the city NEEDS it.
Furthermore, I get the feeling that even if they did add the gate tax, the city would find some other grievance with Disneyland.
D
Deleted member 107043
They aren't obligated. Whether they should or not is a valid question and up to the citizens of Anaheim to decide not Disney.
http://www.ocregister.com/2015/06/3...n-anaheim-gate-tax-and-why-the-city-needs-it/
I love Disney, but with that admiration comes the understanding that Disney is not my friend. It will always put its brand and its bottom line first.
shortstop
Well-Known Member
Right, and of course most citizens will want them to pay more taxes. Make the big, bad, corporation pay more! I agree that it's a valid question, but I don't think it's necessary given the high tax contributions DLR already makes.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The City didn't give away the farm. Let's be clear, the agreement didn't take ANYTHING away that already exists. The agreement keeps Anaheim from enacting a ticket tax against Disney's product. Remember, a tax that does not and has not existed prior in Anaheim. This is a promise of "don't add a new tax". The deal that secured DCA was an entirely different level and far more impactful in both near term and long term true EXPENSES to the city.
The politics are always going to be dynamic... politicians and mob rule are focused on "right now" because that's what makes the news. Disney is a great punchng bag these days because "corporate greed" is all the rage and pointing out profits vs wages.. and concessions when the company is still making profits is good 99% talk.
D
Deleted member 107043
Sure, but in the defense of Anaheim residents Disney hasn't always been the best partner as proven by the way it was willing to shut off direct access to the Resort from businesses and pedestrians on Harbor Blvd. in the company's Eastern Gateway plan. For decades Anaheim officials allowed Disney to do whatever it wanted because of the contributions it was making to the city's coffers, and now people are questioning those decisions. I see nothing wrong with that.
flynnibus
Premium Member
How about when evil Disney took all that vehicle traffic off harbor by closing the car entrance on that side? All those cars going by is a HUGE deal for business exposure.
Let's be clear.. the rub over the entrance change was about SPECIFIC BUSINESS OWNERS - Not Anaheim or its citizens.
Where is the uproar that the west side of Disneyland should have pedestrian access too, so the city can develop that side of the street and boost property values?
The fight over the eastern gateway changes was all about a select group of businesses seeing their golden goose being cooked and big bad Disney acting unilaterally. Plus... most saw little 'benefit' in the sense of what consumers and the city get... from their pedestrian model and uninspired design plans. It was all 'utility' and ed off (rightfully) a group of vocal people. With little sex to overcome the detractors... it had an uphill battle.