LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

Travel Junkie

Well-Known Member
Really, that is just laughable, the OC Register, a publication of Digital First, which runs the Southern California News Group, has attacked anti-Disney folks!?!?

Some would call what I did at MousePlanet, Jim Hill Media and MiceAge as anti-Disney, in pointing out its mistakes and flaws. But I worked with the Register staff in providing some of that information about DCA 1.0, which had MANY problems. The Register has never been afraid to call out Disney when they disagree with them.

Let me re-phrase. They have reporters who do so and the Register has published articles that criticize others who have been critical of Disney. Mark Eades often engages in nasty attacks on fans who are critical of Disney moves on social media. His behavior online representing a paper is reprehensible. Eades and Robert Niles have both written articles that question those who are critical of Disney.

It's also been a long time since the Register wrote anything critical of Disney (as evidenced you had to go that far back to find one and everyone including Disney admitted DCA 1.0 was a bust.) They have had plenty of opportunities to examine Disney critically and I would say as the local paper it is their responsibility to do so. They choose not to. I find it interesting that many "scoops" they get are obviously fed to them by Disney. Why is it the Times is the one So Cal paper that has the articles critical of Disney? Why doesn't the Register doing anything but puff pieces on them? Disney certainly will make mistakes from time to time.

On your second point. I never said you weren't ever critical of Disney. I don't even know who you are, but apparently others do. Again I didn't say you were pro-Disney or never criticized Disney. What I said is that you obviously have shown a deep disdain for certain members of Anaheim city government and calling into question your ability to be fair to them. You seem so involved in local politics it is only natural to ask what your agenda is and why you are constantly going after them. Some is probably deserved as he has made missteps, but not nearly all of it imo. At least you haven't sold me on Tait being the evil person you portray him to be.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

It's also been a long time since the Register wrote anything critical of Disney (as evidenced you had to go that far back to find one and everyone including Disney admitted DCA 1.0 was a bust.) They have had plenty of opportunities to examine Disney critically and I would say as the local paper it is their responsibility to do so. They choose not to. I find it interesting that many "scoops" they get are obviously fed to them by Disney. Why is it the Times is the one So Cal paper that has the articles critical of Disney? Why doesn't the Register doing anything but puff pieces on them? Disney certainly will make mistakes from time to time.

This.
This.
This.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Let me state that Mark Eades worked for The Walt Disney Company for years (1980 through 1993, and knows the company better than most.

http://www.markeades.com/about/

>>Mark received his bachelor’s degree in Film and Communications from California State University, Fullerton in 1979, shortly afterwards he started at Walt Disney Productions in the mailroom, the classic beginning for the film business.

He quickly moved into the Animation Department as a production assistant, then the Editorial Department where he was named Post-Production Supervisor for the EPCOT Center project.

After EPCOT Center opened, WED Enterprises executives Randy Bright and Marty Sklar asked Mark to transfer to their company as a production manager on film-related projects for Disney’s theme parks.

Within a year Mark was named the company’s first ever show producer for World Premiere Circlevision project at Disneyland, that included the Circlevision 360 film “American Journeys” and a preshow film called “All Because Man Wanted to Fly.”

During this time he was asked to research using simulators in attractions at Disney’s theme parks.

This led to the original groundbreaking attraction “Star Tours” on which Mark was part of the development team and one of its producers. He also was tasked with finding the voice of “Rex” for the attraction that opened in 1987.

Around this time WED Enterprises was renamed Walt Disney Imagineering.

Other projects included the Living Seas Pavilion at EPCOT Center and The Wonders of Life Pavilion, both of which had several multi-media shows he produced.

For the Disney/MGM Studios, in his role as casting director, found all the sound-alike voices for the movie stars represented in the Great Movie Ride.

Next, he was assigned to work with Jim Henson on “Muppet*Vision 3D,” another groundbreaking multi-media show that included Audio-Animatronics figures, the first ever use of in-theater effects like water and bubbles, along with a live walk-around character.

Next, he was named show producer for “From Time to Time” – A multi-media attraction for Euro Disneyland – now known as Disneyland Paris.

Mark’s final completed project for Walt Disney Imagineering was an update to the Golden Dream sequence of EPCOT Center’s American Adventure. He was working on the development of “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” when he made the decision to leave Disney.

After leaving Disney, Mark continued to work in the theme park industry. He worked on “EFX” for the MGM Grand as a 3D consultant for the films in the original version of the show.

He worked on the concept development of T23D overseeing the planning and layout for the 3-screen 70mm 3D film project for Universal Studios<<

Mr. Eades "retired" from the Register earlier this year.

Robert Niles is not a reporter for the OCR, he is a contributing writer, which means he writes and edits his own articles and the Register publish them. This is becoming more common in print media as a way to cut costs.

As for Dr. Moreno, as a Anaheim voter, I disagree with a LOT of his actions, and how he is out for himself, and not for the residents of Anaheim. Here is one article from today which shows how out of touch he is.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/12/05/13946/

>>As council watchers know, Councilman Jose F. Moreno never refers to “homeless people” or “the homeless,” but always uses the phrase “people in the condition of homelessness.” In this video, Moreno explains why he employs this clumsy euphemism:
“We call it the condition of homelessness because once you say ‘the homeless people’ you categorize them. You “other” them.”

Moreno was speaking at a New American Leaders Project event in Washington, DC, to a roomful of other radical progressives to whom such that sounds like statements of the obvious. To ordinary folks who haven’t had their common sense educated out of them, it sounds like over-sensitive, politically-correct mumbo-jumbo.

When progressives talk about “the rich,” for example, does that “other” them? Furthermore, Moreno’s objection that saying “the homeless” means one is”categorizing” them rings hollow given his support for California Voting Rights Act-driven council districts, which are based upon categorizing voters by race and ethnicity.

Moreno then makes a startling statement:

“They’re in a condition that is man-made. And I say that explicitly: man-made. Uh, by men who’ve made decisions about our economies and the way that our democracy will not work for some, but for others.”

How’s that? Homeless individuals bear no responsibility for their condition? They’re simply victims of the machinations of the powerful? That makes no sense. Life isn’t the unfolding of some great, grinding Marxian dialectic.

Everyone’s state in the life is, to at least some extent, the sum of the good and bad decisions and choices we make. Some are luckier than others, have greater opportunities than others, work harder and form better habits than others. Some people squander every advantage and go nowhere, or worse. Others have no advantages and manage to achieve everything.

Many of the homeless are in that condition because they’re addicted to alcohol or drugs. A goodly number are criminals recently released from incarceration. Those are the results of bad choices. Shadowy men on corporate boards or from the councils of government didn’t do that to them.<<

I will admit, I plan to work to help someone else win when the District 3 election is held next November. I have not decided who to back yet. (I live in District 2, but still can provide my time and money to defeat Dr. Moreno).
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/10/...led-the-eastern-gateway-project-is-laughable/

>>Yesterday, Los Angeles Times reporter Daniel Miller essentially took credit for Disney’s decision to cancel its Eastern Gateway Project:

Hubris? Ignorance? Shameless self-promotion? All of the above?

Miller’s implied claim betrays an embarrassing level of ignorance about how development works. Think about it: Miller is saying that in the 30 days since his articles appeared, Disney was able to whip up a ready-to-go development plan that integrates a new, cutting-edge 4-Diamond hotel with its other three Anaheim hotel properties (the Disneyland Hotel, the Grand Californian and Paradise Pier) plus a new 6,500 space parking structure.

Anyone with a passing understanding of development and all the studies, plans, etc., a project of this scale would involve, knows that what Miller is claiming is impossible.

Miller reportedly spent nearly a year working on his two-part series and Disney and Anaheim politics – and it still came out sharply biased. Surely the implied claim that these articles killed the Eastern Gateway Project merit a few hours of investigation prior to being made?

Miller overlooks the obvious factors, such as the rash decision by the “People’s Council” to force the mass resignation of all city commissioners – including members of the Planning Commission. The fetishizing of districting trumped good governance and temporarily lobotomized the Planning Commission, causing projects to slow to a crawl. This unanticipated pause becomes an opportunity for Disney to re-evaluate the Eastern Gateway Project. Add in uncertainty about the city council in the wake of the 2016 elections, plus the hectoring from a number of Harbor Boulevard property owners and decision to cancel the Eastern Gateway and focus on developing the westside of the Disneyland Resort isn’t that surprising in retrospect.

Furthermore, Miller’s articles focused on the TOT economic assistance agreements to support 4-Diamond hotel development projects. How does it make sense that Disney would respond by re-locating the parking structure – which it is building on its own dime?

And it’s laughable to imply Disney made these decisions and developed these plans in the 30 days since Miller’s articles appeared. That kind of self-aggrandizement further erodes the already-compromised credibility of Miller’s articles.<<
 

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
Who bought and paid for the article? That's a serious charge.

Darkbeer has stated this numerous times. He has insider information regarding local, Anaheim politics. I do not.

So the article that many seem determined to defend was bought and paid for for political gain. I wouldn't exactly trust the content unless you enjoy having the wool pulled over your eyes.

I could write an entire article made up of mostly true things, but if I purposely omitted other important facts that painted my original mostly true statements in an entirely different light, because by including them it would make my opinion less valid, then it's not a credible article. And if I'm writing it as if it's some sort of expose, gotcha article, I'm just a liar or desperate for some cash.

It may be tempting to take things at face value because it aligns with their own views, but by doing so they're doing themselves a huge disservice. No one really seems interested in the truth or actual facts anymore. They just want something that confirms that their own views are unquestionably right and anyone who disagrees is evil.
 

Curious Constance

Well-Known Member
Here is an extremely simple, made up representation of how I see this article and those that defend it.

Article Fact: Yesterday my son kicked several children in the chest!

Wow, my son seems like a real delinquent!!! Isn't that shocking!!!!

Omitted facts: My son was in karate class and everyone's task was to try and land as many chest kicks as possible. The children were all wearing padding to avoid injury.

Omitted conclusion: Wow, he's not a delinquent at all! He's just doing what everyone else was doing in his karate class!

Defenders of the article: But he DID kick several people in the chest, that's true, and we can back that up. Therefore he was wrong.

Don't get hung up in the article facts. Because there are several omitted facts that will change the value of the article facts.
 

Bullseye1967

Is that who I am?
Premium Member
Everyone’s state in the life is, to at least some extent, the sum of the good and bad decisions and choices we make. Some are luckier than others, have greater opportunities than others, work harder and form better habits than others. Some people squander every advantage and go nowhere, or worse. Others have no advantages and manage to achieve everything.

Many of the homeless are in that condition because they’re addicted to alcohol or drugs. A goodly number are criminals recently released from incarceration. Those are the results of bad choices. Shadowy men on corporate boards or from the councils of government didn’t do that to them.<<


You are so out of touch I am amazed. I was homeless. I am a retired police officer and military officer. I have a silver star and a purple heart. I retired and moved to Kissimmee FL to enjoy my retirement and do some Disney. I slipped in my own house and broke my neck. My insurance did not cover because it was my own home. I ended up filing a lawsuit against my own home owners policy. In the mean time I had 600k in medical bills. I lost my house and everything I owned because I paid a lot of my medical bills up front and insurance was supposed to pay it on the back end. It did not because of my pending lawsuit. Can you please explain to me what "bad decisions" I made to put myself in that situation? I have never used drugs, pretty sure I wasn't an alcoholic (I rarely drink), and have no criminal record. BTW I was a reserve deputy for Osceola County Sheriffs Office at the time. I eventually got my settlement and life is good. I have not seen the homeless problem in California, but I have seen it in Chicago where I was a police officer, and in Kissimmee where I ran a hotel. The homeless are not all a bunch of drug addicted criminals. Financial situations and mental illness play a huge part in it. How wonderful for you to be able to preach from your pulpit and know it all without having a clue. Go down there and see it for what it is. Talk to those "drug addict criminals" and get your eyes opened.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Note, I did not state that, it was the writer of the article I quoted.

Are all homeless criminals - No, but many are. especially with recent State law changes letting many criminals getting lesser sentences.

Are all Homeless addicted to Drugs and Alcohol - NO.

Dr. Moreno said “They’re in a condition that is man-made. And I say that explicitly: man-made. Uh, by men who’ve made decisions about our economies and the way that our democracy will not work for some, but for others.”.

And for MANY, but not all, that is a false statement.
 

Bullseye1967

Is that who I am?
Premium Member
Moreno then makes a startling statement:

“They’re in a condition that is man-made. And I say that explicitly: man-made. Uh, by men who’ve made decisions about our economies and the way that our democracy will not work for some, but for others.”

How’s that? Homeless individuals bear no responsibility for their condition? They’re simply victims of the machinations of the powerful? That makes no sense. Life isn’t the unfolding of some great, grinding Marxian dialectic.

Everyone’s state in the life is, to at least some extent, the sum of the good and bad decisions and choices we make. Some are luckier than others, have greater opportunities than others, work harder and form better habits than others. Some people squander every advantage and go nowhere, or worse. Others have no advantages and manage to achieve everything.

Many of the homeless are in that condition because they’re addicted to alcohol or drugs. A goodly number are criminals recently released from incarceration. Those are the results of bad choices. Shadowy men on corporate boards or from the councils of government didn’t do that to them.<<

Your quote is the 1st and 2nd lines. The rest is written as your opinion. If I misunderstood than I apologize, but it is still a very untrue statement and is your categorizing "Most" homeless. Everyone of them has a different story. Add the Florida Project to your future film viewing. There is also a forum on it here.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
In the post that started with Mark Eades Bio I said...

"As for Dr. Moreno, as a Anaheim voter, I disagree with a LOT of his actions, and how he is out for himself, and not for the residents of Anaheim. Here is one article from today which shows how out of touch he is."

I then linked and quoted part of the article.

Then in response to your post everything is my words, with the exception of the direct quote from Dr, Moreno, which I claimed was false.
 

Bullseye1967

Is that who I am?
Premium Member
In the post that started with Mark Eades Bio I said...

"As for Dr. Moreno, as a Anaheim voter, I disagree with a LOT of his actions, and how he is out for himself, and not for the residents of Anaheim. Here is one article from today which shows how out of touch he is."

I then linked and quoted part of the article.

Then in response to your post everything is my words, with the exception of the direct quote from Dr, Moreno, which I claimed was false.

I apologized if I misunderstood your post. I still have an issue with your post after it but we can agree to disagree. I feel I am a bit more informed on the issue as a whole. Educate yourself. Learning something new is never a bad thing.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I am working on the issue, and agree with the former homeless person working for a new shelter in Anaheim, Alfresco Gardens.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/0...bbying-her-own-solution-for-homeless-housing/

>>West lives a block away from John Marshall Park. Several homeless could be seen milling around the park, near the bathroom and sleeping under trees. Garbage bags and other belongings sit beside them.

West said it was her own experience as a homeless person when she was a young adult and interacting with the homeless who live near her home that gave her the idea for Alfresco Gardens.

Alfresco Gardens would be a private development, West said. Just imagine a gate around a large empty parking lot. A tent set up neatly at each stall. There would be a community restroom, showers and coin-operated laundry. There’s an area for pets and storage lockers with an electrical outlet. No cooking would be allowed. There would be a separate area for nonprofits and city and county officials to provide health, food and financial services. Security guards would roam the area. There would be regular maintenance. Police would have direct access.

West said the rent would cost $150 a month and an additional $50 for a storage locker and $75 for one roommate.

“I want to provide the most basic necessities,” she said. “The goal is to give them just enough so they could want more.

“One thing I learned on the streets and the more I hung around with other homeless is that the more you do for them, the less they do to help themselves,” she said.<<
 

Travel Junkie

Well-Known Member
Darkbeer has stated this numerous times. He has insider information regarding local, Anaheim politics. I do not.

And he seems to have a vendetta against that reporter. You said to not take things at face value. Well I am simply doing the same as I am not taking his insider information at face value. It's pretty obvious he doesn't care for that reporter. That seems like motivation for only painting one side.

And here's the thing, I have trouble with it being portrayed as a hit piece when I got the opposite view of the articles than those attacking it as anti-Disney. I felt there were more points made that Disney is paying it's fair share and that Anaheim is now trying to milk the Disney money machine for more. As evidenced by the taxes it pays (as the article points out) and it's contributions to the community. The article did show both sides and people who see otherwise are only reading part of the article. The parking structure I felt was poor negotiating on Anaheim's part, but that as a long time ago.

There's no question that for a long time Disney pretty much got what it wanted. Anaheim rarely did anything but rubber stamp it. The question posed in the article was whether or not Disney is currently contributing enough. I tend to think that overall it is ok in comparison to other American companies. Overall I do think that American companies should be more for the community, but that's for another discussion. The problem I have is that there seems to be an obsession to discredit a reporter and point to some progressive (in his view progressive means evil) agenda without backing any of it up other than say trust me I know. Apparently he has been or is a reporter. It should be even more clear that he should treat others in the trade fairly. That's simply not happening here.

There is plenty in the article itself to suggest Disney is being a good corporate citizen. There's no need to attack the reporter for disagreeing with part of it.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Look, many different sources have stated the LA Times articals were one side and biased, not just a few folks.

And there is one key point that has been lost in the discussion, and that is the fact that the citizens of Anaheim voted on the TOT tax increase and approved it overwhelmingly, basically supporting the city council back in 1996.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/05/17/morenos-false-narrative-measure-b-anaheim-resort/

>>For progressives, politics is less about truth than about competing narratives – which makes controlling the narrative imperative. [It’s also a major reason campus leftists try to shut down opposing viewpoints, because competing narratives cannot be allowed to take root.] In Anaheim, Councilman Jose F. Moreno is making a determined effort to enthrone his political narrative of the Resort District and its relationship to the rest of the city.

This effort was on full display at last week’s council meeting, which was superficially a ritual public flogging of Assistant City Manager Kristine Ridge for an inadvertently providing mistaken information at the April 25 council meeting about what was contained in the ballot language of Measure B, which was approved by Anaheim voters in November 1996.

Some context is in order: at the April 25 council meeting, the council engaged in a long discussion of Anaheim Resort revitalization policy decisions of the mid-1990s, including increasing the transient occupancy tax increase from 13% to 15% to fund the revitalization.

The Anaheim City Council voted to approve that 2% hike in October and November 1994. As noted, its explicit reason for doing so was to generate the necessary revenues to fund the obligations the city was taking on. No Anaheim Resort revitalization, no 2% TOT increase.

The increase went into effect in June 1995.

The following year, the likely passage of Prop. 218 – requiring a vote of the people on local tax increases, retroactive to January 1995 – on the November 1996 ballot spurred the city council to place Measure B on the same ballot. Measure B simply asked Anaheim voters if they wanted to continue the city’s transient occupancy tax – including the recent 2% increase. When the council voted to place Measure B on the ballot, Mayor Tom Daly noted the Anaheim Resort revitalization was premised on revenue from the 2% TOT increase.<<

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-06/local/me-61805_1_term-limits

>>
Anaheim voters were backing a 15% hotel bed tax that is a crucial element of Disney's $1.9-billion theme park expansion as well as the city's plan to renovate the Anaheim Convention Center.

Without the tax revenue, city officials said, the Disney project would be threatened because Anaheim would lack the funds needed to make a variety of infrastructure improvements required under its agreement with the entertainment giant.<<

70% of the voters approved Measure B, backing the city council actions, including the parking structure.

Why did Daniel miller leave out all the facts showing Anaheim did not pay for the structure, and that the plan had major support of the city council and the residents?

Paragraph 5 of the first LA Times article states.

>>That money all goes to Walt Disney Co. The city of Anaheim, which owns the garage and spent $108.2 million to build it, charges the company just $1 a year for the lease.<<
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
The article did show both sides and people who see otherwise are only reading part of the article

Don't confuse a bunch of citations with "supported" or accuracy.

Big difference between showing both sides by including stuff from both sides.... and fairly or accurately showing both sides. You throw someone a bone... that doesn't mean you've done your diligence.

The piece did not fairly represent many of the cites it used... And left out other major ones that would discredit his use of the reference to paint the picture he was composing. The guy laid some bait and lead his audience right down the path he laid... if you didn't have information outside the article you'd probably think Disney has been this one sided mastermind robbing anaheims coffers for 50 years.

The piece reads a lot different maybe for the people who have been following along with Anaheim and Disney since the resort district era? I get this is a wdw forum and it's dlr audience is still in its infancy... but most of us have been on all the DLR focused forums long before here. The relationship between the city in both managing daily operations and in long term planning are frequent discussion topics.

Personally I look at efforts like how quickly and effectively a project like the toy story lot came together and how well it works even tho it's on public streets as successes in the way the two work together.

Now not every idea is going to be embraced and loved (re: eastern gw)... but is Disney pillaging Anaheim at the expense of Anaheim? I don't think so
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Just thought of one more major point about this so called election mandate.

One-third of Anaheim didn't even vote in the 2016 city election.

The Mayor was mid-term, and only districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 got to cast a vote.

Out of those 4 districts, two SOAR-PAC (the group Disney helps with its support) candidates won handedly.

The two Tait supported candidates, one can't even vote on Disney related items, since her husband works for Disney (ABC Broadcasting).

The other was dr. Moreno, who only won by 72 votes, even with the massive support of Unions and progressives. Over two-thirds of District 3 voted for someone else.

How can someone call that a mandate?
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
OK, so I was having discussions yesterday with a senior Anaheim businessperson, and the topic about Disney and the Resort District came up, and they stated they felt that Tait//Moreno wants Disney and the surrounding businesses to fail, costing the city many jobs and tax revenues. And that is the tame summation, wish I had a audio recording of the things said.

It is a major shame that a select few in power wants to hurt its own city just due to revenge and spite.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom