LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[shortstop]

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.

I agree that Disney is self-seeking on the whole, but it seems odd that all of a sudden the city and citizens have a huge beef with Disney. The city needs Disney to be successful and I'm not sure the Mayor etc. are considering that point right now.

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.

Regarding the eastern gateway, this is what I have been thinking. The project (in my opinion) is HUGELY beneficial to Anaheim, even to those who don't go to Disneyland. The fact that pedestrian access to IHOP will be limited seems like an issue limited to IHOP, and not the average Anaheim citizen (although I agree with those who say Disney should be more accommodating to these businesses).

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

There are no other gate or entertainment taxes at comparable venues in SoCal (at least not to my knowledge). Disney is right to point that out, even though enacting it would of course not affect their bottom line at all.

Realistically a $1 gate tax would contribute $15 million annually, if that. A drop in the proverbial bucket.

 

[shortstop]

There are no other gate or entertainment taxes at comparable venues in SoCal (at least not to my knowledge). Disney is right to point that out, even though enacting it would of course not affect their bottom line at all.

Realistically a $1 gate tax would contribute $15 million annually, if that. A drop in the proverbial bucket.

A drop in Disney's bucket, or in the city's tax revenue bucket?

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

A drop in Disney's bucket, or in the city's tax revenue bucket?

Both - although Disney wouldn't pay it, they'd make the guest pay it on top of the ticket price.

 

[shortstop]

Both - although Disney wouldn't pay it, they'd make the guest pay it on top of the ticket price.

My hunch is that is a huge part of Disney's hesitation - it would look bad to increase ticket prices for the sake of a tax. I foresee a PR nightmare if that happens.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

My hunch is that is a huge part of Disney's hesitation - it would look bad to increase ticket prices for the sake of a tax. I foresee a PR nightmare if that happens.

How so? Disneyland raises prices regularly without any PR nightmares.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

How so? Disneyland raises prices regularly without any PR nightmares.

The tax wouldn't be a PR nightmare. Disney doesn't want it because no other SoCal parks have gate taxes, and they know they are already overcharging people.

It would also expose in a public number just how many tickets are sold each year. Thanks to APs and TDA's destruction of the DL business model, it's not as many as people think. It certainly wouldn't make some huge difference in Anaheim's budget each year, which is what some people seem to think it would do.

 

[flynnibus]

Regarding the eastern gateway, this is what I have been thinking. The project (in my opinion) is HUGELY beneficial to Anaheim, even to those who don't go to Disneyland. The fact that pedestrian access to IHOP will be limited seems like an issue limited to IHOP, and not the average Anaheim citizen (although I agree with those who say Disney should be more accommodating to these businesses).

In the grand scheme... it would be better as they manage Harbor Blvd. But it's bad for the existing businesses there. I think Disney lacked any 'pros' that people cared about when they launched this and that's what made it difficult. You can't just 'take' without any sugar to replace it. The long range plan doesn't really sway people who live in the now.

 

[flynnibus]

My hunch is that is a huge part of Disney's hesitation - it would look bad to increase ticket prices for the sake of a tax. I foresee a PR nightmare if that happens.

It's about stopping it before it even starts. A cheap tax won't impact anyone. No one goes "higher sales tax in XYZ county? No way will I eat at that restaurant!!" . Taxes have to become cumulative or excessive for people to take note of them. The problem for Disney is... once a tax is in place, its virtually impossible to get rid of, and very difficult to control its future growth. Disney stopping it before it even gets a foothold. Once it's there, it's an element in the cost equation Disney can't control... and ultimately customers look at Disney when they pay the bottom line... even if it's not a fee Disney gets.

 

[mickEblu]

It's about stopping it before it even starts. A cheap tax won't impact anyone. No one goes "higher sales tax in XYZ county? No way will I eat at that restaurant!!" . Taxes have to become cumulative or excessive for people to take note of them. The problem for Disney is... once a tax is in place, its virtually impossible to get rid of, and very difficult to control its future growth. Disney stopping it before it even gets a foothold. Once it's there, it's an element in the cost equation Disney can't control... and ultimately customers look at Disney when they pay the bottom line... even if it's not a fee Disney gets.

Why couldn't they include in the contract that for X many years the tax stays at 1$ per ticket or as long as Disney invests X much over X many years the tax will stay 1$? I don't have a dog in this fight but it seems to me Disney had gotten used to controlling the situation with the Anaheim politicians and have never Really felt the heat until now. They may slowly start to realize that they have to make certain concessions that they would not have done in the past.

I get that what Disneyland has done and does for Anaheim cannot be understated. But it just seems like good business for Disney to throw them a small bone like the $1 gate tax. They raise prices every year anyway and could bake it into the price increases. Unless of course there is some huge hidden cost to this process that I am unaware of.

 

[mickEblu]

In any case they need to figure this parking lot situation out. As it stands now, SWL might be sitting around ready to go as an up charge event/ ticket for 6 months until the parking lot is ready for the masses. And on another note, it's starting to look like I lost TOT for an ugly standalone Guardians overlay for the better part of a decade until the rest of the land is built.

 

[TP2000]

Do you think Disney's most recent deal with Anaheim is fair for its citizens? Just curious.

Are you talking about the moratorium on adding a ticket tax? Yes, I do. And here's why...

Anaheim has never taxed tickets. California has no state sales tax on tickets. The "deal" prevents Anaheim from adding a ticket tax, which would not take money from Disney directly but would rather take money from you and me and all the other private citizens who buy Disneyland tickets.

Anaheim currently taxes tourists visiting Disneyland with a 15% Hotel/Motel tax on each night's room rate. A chunk of that money goes into the Anaheim General Fund to service and maintain the streets, sidewalks and utilities in the Anaheim Resort District. The rest of it goes into the General Fund to maintain parks, police, libraries and city services up to 15 miles away from Disneyland within Anaheim's sprawling city boundaries. 43% of that General Fund comes from the Resort District, while that District takes a much smaller fraction of city resources to maintain.

That said, the whole sales pitch Michael Colglazier gave to the city to get that ticket tax moratorium through was typical corporate hogwash. We all know Disneyland was going to build a Star Wars Land and a Marvel expansion and more Resort infrastructure regardless. But Colglazier pretended he could only build that stuff if a ticket tax moratorium was installed for 30 years. Dumb.

But California is already one of the highest taxed states in the nation, and Anaheim visitors are highly taxed on top of that if they buy a t-shirt or stay overnight in the Howard Johnson's. Enough is enough.

 

[mickEblu]

I better never catch Mayor Tait at Star Wars Land or any other land for that matter.

I bet you he secretly has a Club 33 membership, Premier AP and and keeps up with the exclusive pin release dates.

 

[flynnibus]

Why couldn't they include in the contract that for X many years the tax stays at 1$ per ticket or as long as Disney invests X much over X many years the tax will stay 1$?

Does the term "get your foot in the door" sound familiar ?

Once it starts... it is far easier to grow it than it is to start it. You see this on Toll Roads... "build a toll road? the outrage!!!" "Toll increased from 0.25 to 0.50 - oh man, that sucks".

Basically the idea... you can't go backwards.

 

[mickEblu]

Does the term "get your foot in the door" sound familiar ?

Once it starts... it is far easier to grow it than it is to start it. You see this on Toll Roads... "build a toll road? the outrage!!!" "Toll increased from 0.25 to 0.50 - oh man, that sucks".

Basically the idea... you can't go backwards.

Makes sense but we re talking 30-45 year contracts. So then they renegotiate in 2060 and it goes up to 3$- when a park hopper will cost $450 anyway.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Enough is enough.

Exactly what I say each year when Disneyland hikes up its ticket prices.

 

[mickEblu]

Exactly what I say each year when Disney hikes up its ticket prices.

That's my knee jerk reaction too but when you start comparing to other entrainment options in LA like a concert or a laker game that only lasts 2.5 hours you realize you are still getting pretty good value with Disneyland tickets/ APs.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

That said, the whole sales pitch Michael Colglazier gave to the city to get that ticket tax moratorium through was typical corporate hogwash. We all know Disneyland was going to build a Star Wars Land and a Marvel expansion and more Resort infrastructure regardless. But Colglazier pretended he could only build that stuff if a ticket tax moratorium was installed for 30 years. Dumb.

 

[shortstop]

I just think DL guests already pay enough for their tickets, and many would be shocked/annoyed if now there was an additional tax on top of it. People are used to sales tax (unless you are an Oregonian like me!) but they are not used to a tax on their Disneyland tickets. So maybe it wouldn't be a PR nightmare but at the very least it would be a headache for customer service.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Makes sense but we re talking 30-45 year contracts. So then they renegotiate in 2060 and it goes up to 3$- when a park hopper will cost $450 anyway.

The City would be under no obligation to negotiate the new tax rate with Disney. In your hypothetical it could only go up to $3.00, but if Disney balked at the terms the City could still just make it $3.00 or $30.00 because they control the rate.