LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[Disney Irish]

You make it sound like it's a bad thing for the public to hold elected officials accountable. You can't argue that Disney isn't to blame for the current political situation in Anaheim and then cry foul when citizens vote to change the status quo. If this isn't Disney's fault (I'm not saying it is entirely) then the blame must lie with a local political system that allowed the situation flourish for decades. I don't fault Disney for wanting deals that favor its business, but I also don't take issue with locals who demand the best deals for their communities.

I'm not saying its a bad thing, but an uninformed public will put in officials that may not be the best for their well being. Just look at the comment section of the 2nd article. You have blame being put on Disney and illegal immigrants as the reason for Anaheim's issues. This is why Populist movements don't work and usually don't last very long. They try to put the blame on others instead of actually trying to fix something. There is a reason why you haven't seen very many Populist candidates lasting long in the political arena.

I agree with the following comment left on that 2nd article:

"Disney is not responsible for the social ills of Anaheim, and money can only be so effective in combating them. But this argument is classic misdirection. Politics is not, as one person posting here says, "about identifying who or what is responsible for voters' perceived pain and suffering." It is rather, as Gore Vidal wrote, purely and simply about who is spending the people's money on what."

 

[Deleted member 107043]

I'm not saying its a bad thing, but an uninformed public will put in officials that may not be the best for their well being. Just look at the comment section of the 2nd article. You have blame being put on Disney and illegal immigrants as the reason for Anaheim's issues. This is why Populist movements don't work and usually don't last very long. They try to put the blame on others instead of actually trying to fix something. There is a reason why you haven't seen very many Populist candidates lasting long in the political arena.

I agree with the following comment left on that 2nd article:

"Disney is not responsible for the social ills of Anaheim, and money can only be so effective in combating them. But this argument is classic misdirection. Politics is not, as one person posting here says, "about identifying who or what is responsible for voters' perceived pain and suffering." It is rather, as Gore Vidal wrote, purely and simply about who is spending the people's money on what."

Again, I'm not particularly interested in going further with this conversation beyond focusing on Disney and speculating on the outcomes we can expect in Anaheim's new political climate.

It's pretty clear, at least to me, that the 2015 deal was the last straw for certain Anaheim residents, and Disney's hardline strategy and political wrangling backfired. Had they just been willing to negotiate on the gate taxes while agreeing to continue investing in DLR (which they were going to do anyway, let's be honest) they most likely wouldn't be in the position they're in now.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It looks like they are going to need to play nice with the the city before they can even think about negotiating another park in Anaheim. Looking at the P&R business from a high level I'd be willing to bet that Disney is more focused on Asia and Florida as the real long-term growth opportunities right now but who knows.

The land is already zoned for the third gate. The Toy Story Parking lot is technically a temporary zoning use.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

The land is already zoned for the third gate. The Toy Story Parking lot is technically a temporary zoning use.

Sure, but that doesn't mean Disney can just build whatever theme park it wants with the land. A major project like a new theme park would likely undergo intense scrutiny (much like the Eastern Gateway) for several years before being approved by the City. Under the current City Council it's possible that any proposed large scale development would stall if Disney doesn't agree to concessions the City makes. I'm pretty sure there's not much of an appetite for that kind of fight in Anaheim right now.

 

[Disney Irish]

Again, I'm not particularly interested in going further with this conversation beyond focusing on Disney and speculating on the outcomes we can expect in Anaheim's new political climate.

It's pretty clear, at least to me, that the 2015 deal was the last straw for certain Anaheim residents, and Disney's hardline strategy and political wrangling backfired. Had they just been willing to negotiate on the gate taxes while agreeing to continue investing in DLR (which they were going to do anyway, let's be honest) they most likely wouldn't be in the position they're in now.

Without understanding why something happened you can't begin to understand how it will effect the future of it.

Basically the way I see it is that not much will change in terms of the gridlock between Disney and the City Council until Tait is gone next year (term limits). Disney will likely back a pro-business/pro-Disney Mayor and other Council candidates, and then we'll see the make up of the City Council. But until then not much will happen in terms of major projects being approved.

So SW:GE will open in 2019 without the Eastern Gateway, it'll be a mess. But hopefully by then a new Mayor and City Council will be in place to help smooth over the project and it'll be underway either right before or right after opening of SW:GE.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sure, but that doesn't mean Disney can just build whatever theme park it wants with the land. A major project like a new theme park would likely undergo intense scrutiny (much like the Eastern Gateway) for several years before being approved by the City. Under the current City Council it's possible that any proposed large scale development would stall if Disney doesn't agree to concessions the City makes. I'm pretty sure there's not much of an appetite for that kind of fight in Anaheim right now.

Withholding approval just because is a surefire way to find the City in court.

 

[Disney Irish]

Sure, but that doesn't mean Disney can just build whatever theme park it wants with the land. A major project like a new theme park would likely undergo intense scrutiny (much like the Eastern Gateway) for several years before being approved by the City. Under the current City Council it's possible that any proposed large scale development would stall if Disney doesn't agree to concessions the City makes. I'm pretty sure there's not much of an appetite for that kind of fight in Anaheim right now.

You write this as if the current City Council is there for the next decade or two. They aren't. Anaheim is under a four year staggered cycle on the City Council, with two term term limits. So next year will be an election and some of those people will be gone, including the Mayor who is a major blocker.

That is why Disney is likely playing the waiting game on a lot of these projects.

 

[sirstude]

Thanks for the info on the makeup of Anaheim, but still don't really comprehend that level of population. In a 50 mile radius of Helena there are around 40000 people. I'm glad the number are there to support places like Disney, but could not live there myself.

 

[flynnibus]

These are citizens tired of their local city council being in bed with a large corporation and overlooking their needs

*chuckle*
There was no purge of the City Council or referendum against Disney backed people.

The Council had turnover due to the new districting plan and some Disney backed candidates didn't win this time around. The council will ALWAYS have turnover due to the term limits. The current group has been pushing back against Disney... Disney will 'address' that on the next cycle.

 

[Curious Constance]

The council needs to take into consideration that 99% of it's citizens are addicted to Disney and just let Disney do whatever the hey they want to as long as they keep offering new popcorn buckets and limited edition pins.

 

[shortstop]

The council needs to take into consideration that 99% of it's citizens are addicted to Disney and just let Disney do whatever the hey they want to as long as they keep offering new popcorn buckets and limited edition pins.

I think you have found the solution.

Regular popcorn buckets: $8.99

AP popcorn buckets: $15.99

Anaheim City Council Member exclusive popcorn buckets: $19.99

Surely this will be enough to sway even the harshest anti-Disney politicians.

 

[SoManyWasps]

*chuckle*
There was no purge of the City Council or referendum against Disney backed people.

The Council had turnover due to the new districting plan and some Disney backed candidates didn't win this time around. The council will ALWAYS have turnover due to the term limits. The current group has been pushing back against Disney... Disney will 'address' that on the next cycle.

I can't help but imagine a Anaheim city counselor walking into their home like Matt Damon at the end of The Departed, only to find Bob Iger in a clean suit holding a pistol.

 

[Curious Constance]

I can't help but imagine a Anaheim city counselor walking into their home like Matt Damon at the end of The Departed, only to find Bob Iger in a clean suit holding a pistol.

Rude. I'm trying to get over Bob Iger, and it certainly doesn't help when you fill my head with these steamy fantasies.

 

[jmuboy]

I was just at DL on a long weekend visit from the east coast while these articles came out. They were certainly interesting reads for the flight home. I do not blame Disney - or any big company for that matter - for trying to get the best deals and incentives to grow their businesses. In my home state of Virginia my governor is striking deals left and right to get businesses to relocate here. However I do think Disneyland is COMPLETELY amateurish in how they are handling this. They need to be more agile in dealing with Anaheim. Like it or not THEY NEED the parking deck approved. And any savvy business person should have seen this political change coming or at least the possibility of it happening. And they should have developed a contingency plan to deal with the city if it happened. Like many have suggested, Disney should have appealed to the "citizen focused" shift in city leadership’s incentives and strike deals to help fund projects around the city in exchange for the needed approvals and financing for the new deck. In my opinion DL has gotten an obscene amount of breaks with the hotel incentive, admission tax moratorium and Mickey and Friends parking deck deal. And again, I don’t blame them for being smart business people. But Disneyland is not struggling financially and $5 million dollar gift to a improve schools or another $5 million dollar gift to address street and sidewalk infrastructure repair projects. Anaheim and DL could strike several versions of deal where DL looks altruistic and the City leadership looks like it’s getting Disney to open its pocket books to help the city it calls home. Win for DL, City leadership and city residents. I know I’m over simplifying it somewhat…..but it’s not THAT hard. Everyone has a price so to speak and DL and Anaheim both seem to be digging in their heels and not looking at this strategically. How can they each give a little and get what they want.


And for goodness sakes Disney, build a d@mn ground-level sidewalk along the new sky bridge across Harbor that allows access to the new Eastern gateway security check point. Again, Disney gives a little and everyone wins. It’s just silly to me. Disney should want to appear to at least want to be good neighbors. Yes, I think the Harbor businesses and their complaints about this parking structure are a COMPLETE joke. And personally I hope Disney buys them all and tears them all down. But for now, when the parking need is a critical problem with serious negative impacts on the guests and cast across the resort, is it really worth the fuss on Disney's part not to provide a Harbor Blvd pedestrian access point to the security screening area near where the bridge is located?


It all leaves me shaking my head.

 

[TP2000]

Great dialogue here gang. I've read both parts of the LA Times charmingly slanted article. And I'm struck by this...

None of these issues are exclusive to Disney. Every company in America, big or small, has done something in the last 50 years to get assistance or a sweetheart deal or two from their local city hall to stay put and/or invest in their local business.

And then the LA Times tries to salaciously bring up the 1960's practice of Disneyland bosses taking the Anaheim City Council over to Catalina each year for a boozy boys club weekend, as if that was anything unusual or even vaguely interesting for 1966. Did none of us ever watch a single episode of Mad Men? Does no one remember when booze and girls and golf vacations and solid gold cufflinks were routinely gifted from companies to politicians to grease the wheels of commerce and industry and government??? That's what happened in 1966, from any American company big enough to have a decent expense account and a pretty secretary with the mayor's phone number in her rolodex.

But the LA Times throws the Catalina Island excursions of 50 years ago out there as if it's some evil element to the 2010's and the Eastern Gateway problem. At least the Times had the good taste (if not the destroyed evidence) to ignore the fact that there were girls involved at those Catalina events, while the wives stayed home on the mainland for the weekend and pretended their husbands really were just going fishing and playing golf with the Mayor.

My point is that none of this stuff is exclusive to Disney or Disneyland. It happens every darn day; companies bargaining with local and state governments to get tax breaks and accomodations to help their local business. The girls were phased out in the 1980's, and the booze was cut off in the 1990's, but the game is the same in the 2010's. Texas state government does this on a massive scale, luring companies from all over the USA to relocate to their state with promises of decades-long moratoriums on local taxes and up-front baskets of money to help with the move. And big companies happily take advantage of Texas for that. Recent Texas Example #593: Toyota Motors of America.

And all of the current indignation at Disneyland stems from that damn Mickey & Friends Parking Structure and the fact that Disneyland gets to keep the 20 bucks from every car that passes through the toll booths. ATTENTION BOB CHAPEK: Just buy out that parking structure for $200 Million once and for all and take that dumb argument off the table!

 

[TP2000]

So, now that we've been talking about this for awhile, does anyone care to take a stab at what Disneyland's "Fair Share" of the local taxes for Anaheim should be???

That's a question that is always posed, if not thrown in a successful person or businesses face as a challenge, but it is almost NEVER answered by those who pose the question in the first place and demand a "fair share".

If 43% of Anaheim's annual tax base is paid by Disneyland's presence, going directly into Anaheim's General Fund for parks/schools/police/libraries/services/etc., but that is not deemed a "fair share", then how much should Disneyland and its customers pay to the City of Anaheim for the privilege of doing business in and visiting Anaheim each year? Please vote...

• 43% of Anaheim's taxes is a "fair share" for Disneyland and its customers to pay each year
• 50% of Anaheim's taxes is a "fair share" for Disneyland and its customers to pay each year
• 60% of Anaheim's taxes is a "fair share" for Disneyland and its customers to pay each year
• 75% of Anaheim's taxes is a "fair share" for Disneyland and its customers to pay each year
• 95% of Anaheim's taxes is a "fair share" for Disneyland and its customers to pay each year

I would be very interested to hear what that percentage of taxes paid to Anaheim is each year that Disneyland and its customers should meet to be considered a "fair share". Anyone want to play?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

And all of the current indignation at Disneyland stems from that damn Mickey & Friends Parking Structure and the fact that Disneyland gets to keep the 20 bucks from every car that passes through the toll booths.

I think ii could be more than that. If there's one thing we can point to that created the current division between Disney and nearby residents it would be the 2015 deal. That seems to be the straw that was one too many.

ATTENTION BOB CHAPEK: Just buy out that parking structure for $200 Million once and for all and take that dumb argument off the table!

And maybe pay the city a portion of the past receipts.

On a related note, on the other side of the country, Disney's strong arm negotiating tactics has backfired with one of its pay TV partners.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-disney-espn-altice-optimum-20170928-story.html

 

[TP2000]

I think ii could be more than that. If there's one thing we can point to that created the current division between Disney and nearby residents it would be the 2015 deal. That seems to be the straw that was one too many.

That is the straw that really ticked off the Mayor and a few councilmen; they were denied a potential future stream of city taxes from Disneyland. Because apparently a 17% nightly bed tax on Anaheim's 21,000 hotel rooms and the $125 Million a year in city fees paid directly by Disney just isn't enough.

The local anti-Disney political organizers, as well as the usual journalists, use the 1990's Mickey & Friends Parking Structure deal as the big rallying cry of how Disneyland is cheating the locals and taking advantage of their civic hosts.

The ticket tax, which would be paid by visiting tourists and Annual Passholders directly, not Disneyland or the Walt Disney Company, is something that mainly annoys the local politicians worried about paying off the $600 Million in unfunded city pensions they have.

 

[TP2000]

And maybe pay the city a portion of the past receipts.

That's where I get the $200 Million figure from. The structure cost Anaheim $110 Million to build in 1997-1999. Disney started operating it and charging cars to enter in 2000. A small return on that investment for Anaheim would be $200 Million.

But, if Anaheim had told Eisner to go pound sand and build their own parking structure, and then Anaheim invested $110 Million in the stock market in 1997, with the average 8% return of the last 20 years that $110 Million would now be worth $515 Million. So maybe Disney should offer to buy back the parking structure for $500 Million? What a huge windfall for Anaheim!

Something tells me there would still be critics saying Disney and the people paying $20 bucks to park their cars are not paying a "fair share" however.

 

[Deleted member 107043]

That is the straw that really ticked off the Mayor and a few councilmen

And some voters too apparently.