LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[Curious Constance]

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?

If Disney is making any profit whatsoever, then they are not paying their fair share.

That tends to be how people think.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

@TP2000 , don’t have the time to go into detail right now, but I find the fair share argument, as it’s constructed by the piece, to not fully encompass the issues Disney’s presence brings to Anaheim.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

Gotta get that biased media narrative rolling... they have to pay for the ARTIC somehow...

That tends to be how people think.

Increasingly so and it is downright frightening.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I'm not gonna pretend to begin to understand the intricacies of local politics, let alone Disney's influence and relationship with Anaheim. But, Disney is in a very powerful position as the biggest tourist draw in the city, the largest employer in the city, and Disney's guests also help fund local restaurant and hotels outside of the Disney owned properties. Disney is also the biggest moneymaker in the city, and as said before, pays for 43% of Anaheim's annual tax base.

I'm not gonna fault Disney for lobbying and forming relationships with local politicians to help further their goals, but I will fault the local politicians for making lousy deals that might not be in the best interest for the overall city.

This is a great opportunity for Disney to start local school fundraisers and programs, as a way to garner positive PR with the public and local government.

 

[jmuboy]

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.

I'm not sure if Disneyland would ever buy the deck outright at 100 or 200 million. But I think 50 million ( a split of the original payment ) would still go a long way. And that is a small drop in the bucket for Disney when compared to the cost of the recent fighting , bad press and ill will locally. Plus it's really worth it to end grid lock on the 2nd deck. Again - the city will look like they won a battle with Disney.

 

[Darkbeer1]

I agree. This is why it's unlikely that Disney will ever build a third park in Anaheim.

The real reason why, there is no land available. Disney is having serious issues finding lots for parking (mainly cast members). No way can they get enough attached land and have parking. OK, if you convert the entire Toy Story /Katella CM lot to a third park, you don't have a place to build a new structure to replace all the parking lost. Yes, there is a plan to build a parking structure at the corner of Harbor and Ball to replace the ground level CM spaces. But they don't have the temporary spaces to move the cars during construction. So that might alleviate the CM issue. The new 4th Hotel will require a new structure or two to replace the parking lost, plus the additional spaces needed for the Hotel guests and CM's. So you build a new structure behind the Paradise Pier that would replace the old, poorly designed PPH structure and expand it to the corner of Katella and Disneyland Drive.

So even if you have a new council that favors business and Disney, there is no real way to get the needed land.

All we can hope for is additional expansion of DCA and Disneyland, which would require the relocation of more backstage facilities

If Disney was serious about a third park, they could have come to the table when the former military facilities in Tustin and Irvine came available. Too late now.

 

[Darkbeer1]

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.

And we have a winner.

Let's talk attendance numbers and industry standards.

Any admission counts as a person, full price, discounted tickets, Annual Passholders, and the big one Comps, which includes CM sign ins. Also, outside vendors that work inside the park (not many left, but some, like the Kamen Artists) also count. Now, with a multi-park situation, the standard is first entry per day. So an AP who enters Disneyland before DCA counts as one visit to Disneyland, and no visit to DCA. (Of course, Disney tracks the numbers in many ways, including what time folks leave. (Why you exit through a turnstile prior to park closing, when they open the gates, as they know that number based on those left into the park.)

County Fair attendance numbers can be half comps and vendors going to work their booths/food stands.

So Comps would not be charged a tax, since there is no payment made. And what do you do about AP's? Disney knows the average visits per year based on each type of AP. So does Disney pay the tax, and just add the average amount to the price. Or does Disney send a bill at the end of the year with the exact count of visits, that would be sent to the city.

So for many reasons, with the exact numbers being released a large one, is why Disney wants nothing to do with a amusement tax.

 

[flynnibus]

an amusement tax doesn't have to do anything with the actual admissions. It can simply be a % against admission's sold. Actual use is not relevant. You paid $1000 for up to 300 admissions... you pay the same 10% tax the guy who paid $99 to get in for a day. No one has to report actual admissions, only tax what they sell. The companies aren't going to start giving away their admissions to avoid a tax.

But what they might do is start shifting dollars away from admission media to other types of charges...

 

[Darkbeer1]

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?

I live in Anaheim, which is close to the LA County border, and we try and shop in Orange County and it's 8% rate, and avoid places like La Mirada (LA County) and it's 10.25 rate.

But we also shop for bargains and use coupons.

 

[Darkbeer1]

So, shouldn’t Disney be pushing for the expansion of the LA Metro to Orange County and use its influence to determine the route and stops with a public-private partnership where each side wins?

LA Metro already serves Anaheim with the Route 460 bus. The Metrolink Trains stop at Anaheim, Fullerton and Buena Park. I recently took the Metrolink to SFMM (Santa Clarita Station).

For Disneyland, the best option for most is taking the AMTRAK or Metrolink to Fullerton, and then catch the OCTA Route 543 Express bus that goes down Harbor, and stops in front of the park.

As for Disneyland and working with the city, a lot of mistakes were made, including ARTIC (The Anaheim Train Station) that is running a major deficit due to lack of use. There is a plan for an express bus run by the city (ART) between the new Transportation Hub on Manchester to ARTIC. There is a current ART route that does make the route, and the station sells ART tickets.

 

[Darkbeer1]

They touch on the tax incentives to build 4 star luxury hotels. This is a program that Anaheim put forth to encourage building more high end hotels. It is available to all developers. Why is Disney singled out for availing itself of this program?

The first one being built is the former Anabella, which is mostly torn down now, to become a Westin. Its primary focus is the business traveler and the Convention Center next door. Many support facilities including meeting rooms and catering are primary features for the new property. Now, will they turn down the Disneyland visitor? Of course not, but the profit is the high rates they can charge the convention customer. This benefits the city, who owns and operates the Convention Center, and not Disney.

Here are some photos of the property (end of the album) from today.

https://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Theme-Parks/Anaheim-Resort-District---1052017/

 

[Darkbeer1]

Any money Disney loses will come directly out of customer's pockets. Of course, if Disney gains anything they will pretend they lost and money will still come out of customer's pockets. Disney's customers lose no matter what. The customers deal with less parking and higher prices or more parking and higher prices. Makes you want to give money to the little guys like Ceder Fair and Six Flags instead of the number 1 and 2 largest media companies in the world.

Cedar Fair is making out great with Knott's in competing with Disney for the locals in the area. The marketing of a low cost Season Pass with no blockout dates has done a lot to improve attendance. Funny to watch the park's number change when the DLR SoCal AP's are blocked out, and when they aren't. Summer and Christmas have marked increases as folks are not willing to pay for higher priced AP's or Blockout tickets from Disney.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Maybe a company like Disney shouldn’t be taking money away from children to receive a quality public education and investments in community services like police and fire. That’s where the money should be going.

The vast majority of education money comes directly from the state, in fact, in California over 40% of the state budget is spent on K-12 education. This money is sent to the local school districts to spend. Also, federal funding makes up some of the education budget. Locally, the main source of education funding is bonds that are added onto Property Taxes to pay for structural improvements to the facilities. And Disney pays its fair share, like every other property owner. Living in West Anaheim, I have 3 school bonds as part of my property tax bill.

Disney pays a lot directly to the Anaheim Police and Fire departments, including about 10 full time officers assigned to the DLR, plus lots of wages to those who direct traffic due to Disney traffic. Plus a lot of the TOT taxes go to paying for police and fire staff city wide.

 

[Darkbeer1]

What I get the kick out of is the Times insinuating that Disney is not paying for the parking structure. As someone stated, it is quite common for a city to issue bonds for a project for a private business in order to get better interest rates. In general, that business actually makes the payments on the bonds and the $1.00 buyout at the end is just really paperwork. I would guess that Disney is making the bond payments on the parking structure. It could be possible that Disney is not paying, since I don't live down there and did not pay any attention to when that happened. Anyone out there know for sure?

The bonds are being paid off quicker than expected. Part of the TOT tax is dedicated to paying them off. The Bonds also paid for a lot of the cities projects, including the Convention Center.

 

[Darkbeer1]

The 1990 Master Plan has the Toy Story lot, formerly the Fujishige strawberry farm, as the planned location of the third gate. Additionally, Disney quietly owns a good amount of land around that property. This land, which is not part of the resort district, houses trailer parks and motels. Many cast members live in these properties because they cannot afford to get an apartment/house. You can’t build a third gate until Disney evicts these tenants and the property is absorbed into the resort district.

I strongly believe this is one of the crucial things missing from the LA Times report @WDW1974 was talking about in his thread. It’s Anaheim’s trump card, if you will.

Disney does NOT own the Trailer Park located in the Resort District, or any other property that has housing on it (to my knowledge). They don't own the former Arena Inn property, or any other third party Hotel or business that border the Katella CM/Toy Story Lot. And the city has rights to some of the parking spaces as part of the deal in the 1990's that included the Mickey and Friends structure.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Ok, first off, let me say a few things to add context to the following posts and comments. First off, I did cover the Disneyland Expansion in the 1990's and early 2000's, so now the history and also the politics, plus knowing many of the key players on both sides. (multiple retired senior Disneyland employees have called be a historian of the era). I also moved to West Anaheim a few years ago, buying a house there. I am also currently involved in many political issues in the city, including the homeless issue and parking issues. I do have to be careful in what I say, and what I don't say. I also have some current non-disclosure agreements that limits my comments.

OK, I knew about this article for a couple of months ago, when folks reached out for information, some of which I supplied. And as some of us thought, it came out as an one sided piece. Some folks look to the Democratic Party and the Unions for pushing the agenda to get it published. That said, let me share some rebuttals to the opinion piece. I am only using "Fair Use" quotes, there is much more at each link provided.

The first one isn't directly related, but shows one major problem with the city government,

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/09/19/anaheim-become-unstableheim/

>>
Anaheim has a Council-Manager form of government in which the professional City Staff receive policy direction from the elected City Council and carry out the day-to-day affairs of the City. In fact, the Anaheim City Charter specifically prohibits the Mayor and City Council from interfering in the day-to-day administration of the City, and limits the number of City employees who report directly to the Council to only three – the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk.

So, it says a lot about how bad things have gotten in Anaheim under the Tait-Moreno regime that all three of those positions bear the “Interim” tag. That’s right – for the first time anyone can recall in Anaheim’s history, the City is being run by an Interim City Manager, Interim City Attorney, and an Interim City Clerk.<<

And now to the article..

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/09/23/the-myth-of-the-anti-disney-anti-resort-backlash/

>>
It captures the imagination of progressive activists and their media sympathizers, but did it actually happen? A sober examination of the facts shows no evidence of such a mandate; if anything, the Tait-Moreno majority was a narrow fluke on the scale of Trump’s electoral college win.

For starters, the narrowness by which the “People’s Council” – i.e. the Tait-Moreno council majority – came into being argues against the idea of Anaheim voters turning against the Resort area. Denise Barnes won District 1 with a 291-vote margin, while Jose F, Moreno squeaked out a win in District 3 by 72 votes. In other words, the Tait-Moreno majority materialized on the basis of 363 votes – 0.68% of the total votes cast citywide.

It’s absurd to divine any kind of mandate out of a rounding error.<<

>>
The final proof in the pudding? The complete lack of conviction with which Moreno has pursued his signature issues – making Anaheim a “sanctuary city” and his bold claim to want to end Anaheim’s anti-camping ordinance. A candidate riding a tidal wave of public opinion and mandate would pursue campaign rhetoric with direct and fearless action. Moreno instead is still “studying” both issues.

Add to that Moreno (and Tait) professing strongly not to be “Anti-Disney” nor “Anti-Resort” when that characterization is made, and you see the narrative of the “People” turning against the Resort is merely campaign fiction.<<

MUCH MORE in the link above.

Here is another one.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/09/25/dear-los-angeles-times-yes-disney-pay-fair-share-anaheim/

>>
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times headlined a front-page article with the rhetorical question “Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share in Anaheim?” The author, Daniel Miller, unmistakably tilts the article toward the conclusion that Disney does not – despite the overwhelming weight of the evidence to the contrary.

By any reasonable, objective standard, the relationship between Disney and Anaheim – including the 1996 agreement that created the Resort District – has been a mutually beneficial one. However, by cherry-picking facts, presenting some out of context and omitting key information altogether, the article’s author weaves a false narrative that Disney is taking advantage of Anaheim taxpayers.<<

>>The councilman from District 3 goes on to attribute his anti-Disney activism as “being pro-neighborhood, pro-city.” Left unanswered is how an antagonistic stance toward Anaheim’s biggest employer and taxpayer is “pro-neighborhood, pro-city” when it is the existence of Disneyland and businesses associated with it that fund city services. Anaheim city government would literally collapse without the Resort District, which is the fruit of the public-private partnerships Moreno and Tait find so noxious.<<

The next one is basically an article from another Disney/Theme Park related website, so I won't quote from it.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/09/...blog-debunks-lats-disney-anaheim-distortions/

Next is an open letter to the LA Times from Former Mayor Tom Daly, so I can quote the entire thing.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/10/02/former-mayor-tom-daly-rebuts-la-times-disney-anaheim/

>>
Your readers were not provided a balanced perspective on the relationship between the city of Anaheim and Walt Disney Co. I was interviewed about my years as mayor, including about agreements reached between the city and the company to create the Anaheim Resort District. (“Is Disney paying its share in Anaheim?” Sept. 24)

The vastly greater-than-anticipated revenues from tourism since the resort creation are hardly mentioned. The many beautification improvements to decaying old streetscapes near Disneyland — a truly stunning before-and-after success — are ignored.

Also not mentioned are the hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial transportation improvements included in the agreements, as well as the affordable housing projects adjacent to the resort.

The major financial windfall to the city treasury from tourism should be a source of pride and opportunity for the city. Anaheim has more financial resources than most California cities, primarily due to the largesse of tourism. Yet the city has struggled in recent years to effectively demonstrate how it spends those extra revenues on community benefits, such as new parks, youth programs or street and sidewalk repairs.

Meanwhile, the city’s tourism revenues and employment base continue to grow every year thanks to the thoughtful — and unanimous — decisions made at City Hall 20 years ago.

Assemblyman Tom Daly (D-Anaheim)

The writer was mayor of Anaheim from 1992-2002.<<

And this piece of missing info from the LA Times article.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/10/02/la-times-disney-anaheim-sins-of-omission/

>>To read reporter Daniel Miller’s telling of the District 3 and 4 elections, the only real player was Disney, and therefore Moreno’s squeaker victory can be read as an anti-Disney backlash. Other factors that materially contributed to the outcome are ignored. The article’s biased is even more pronounced due to the reporter’s quoting of anti-Disney individuals without identifying them as such.<<

Many examples are in the link.

And one more, another open letter, so I can quote more of it.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2017/10/...-times-is-disney-paying-its-share-in-anaheim/

>>
The LA Times report, Is Disney paying its share in Anaheim?, by its header, select information, and lack of context, leads a reader by the nose to a wrong conclusion. The correct answer, however, is a resounding “yes.” Missing from the story are some undisputed facts:

Fact. Disneyland is Anaheim’s largest taxpayer, by far. Disney paid over $125 million in taxes to Anaheim and its schools last year, and this number continues to grow every year.

Fact. Disneyland is not only Anaheim’s but Orange County’s largest employer, and California’s largest single site employer, with nearly 30,000 direct jobs. Disney’s activity has led to tens of thousands of new jobs in the region’s vibrant tourist economy.

Fact. In the early 1990s, Anaheim suffered blight and congestion. But in 1996, the City of Anaheim, under the bold leadership of its council and Mayor Tom Daly, now Assemblyman, worked with Disney through a public-private partnership to create the Anaheim Resort. Each element of that partnership went through tough negotiations, which residents and visitors now judge a success. The agreement transformed Anaheim into a place of pride. Furthermore, the resort district benefits a wide range of businesses in Anaheim, all contributing to a robust Orange County economy. And driven by Disneyland, the resort district brings a net surplus of $81 million per year, and growing, to Anaheim’s budget.

Fact. Most out-of-towners who visit the Anaheim Resort and Disneyland stay in hotels. Hotel taxes collected in Anaheim have tripled. And hotel taxes are 100% allocated to a city’s general fund, unlike property taxes and sales taxes, which are apportioned among the state, schools, city and county government. Prior Anaheim leaders wisely pushed to maximize the benefit from the Anaheim Resort through hotel taxes, and it’s worked. The most recently approved city budget projects over $155 million in hotel bed tax revenue this upcoming fiscal year—that’s about half of the city’s entire budget, directly attributable to the resort.

Fact. A so-called “gate tax” affects both residents and visitors—any dollar tax paid by a resident or visitor to government means one less dollar spent for goods and services provided by local private sector businesses—the real drivers of a thriving economy. Thankfully, Anaheim agreed not to impose such a gate tax for decades to come in exchange for billions in investment and new attractions.

Fact, the current Tait-Moreno led city council like to deflect onto the resort their own questionable decision-making on societal problems shared by many urban centers. Are they spending their bounty wisely? Anaheim will have a $3 million surplus next year and growing. Sales tax, property tax and TOT are all up in Anaheim. Enhancing parks, adding 10 more police offers and spending tens of millions of dollars to fix city streets highlight their 2017-18 budget. Unfunded pension liabilities caused by past council decisions? Addressing the homeless issue? Anaheim has the resources to do something about it. They are the envy of 33 other O.C. cities.

Fact. This Tait-Moreno “majority” came to power with no mandate. The narrow results were largely driven by a polarizing Presidential election and crowded fields in a new citywide district voting system. While Councilman Moreno won by a mere 72 votes, the pro-business council representative for the new Anaheim Resort voting district, Lucille Kring, was overwhelmingly re-elected.

Anaheim and Disneyland Resort have had a mutually beneficial relationship since 1955 when the park opened in a former orange grove. City residents and business both thrive if their political leaders thoughtfully spend the riches entrusted to them.<<

And here is a designated link to Dr, Moreno and his history.

http://www.anaheimblog.net/category/government-politics/jose-moreno/

Now, if you take into consideration of the LA Times obvious biases (Just look how they cover President Trump). the fact the Democrats are looking at Orange County to gain seats in the US House of Representatives, and their Union partners will be funding a lot of campaigns in the next year, including the Senator Josh Newman recall, and all the races and propositions on the June and November 2018 ballots. and you can see that they are starting to set the stage for all the campaigning they need to do.

In Anaheim, we have an election for a new Mayor, and three councilmembers, District 2 (my district), District 6 (Anaheim Hills) and District 3, which is Dr, Moreno's current seat. PLUS the Hotel Tax issue that UNITE Here got on the ballot.

http://www.ocregister.com/2016/10/19/anaheim-votes-to-put-2-luxury-hotel-projects-on-2018-ballot/

https://voiceofoc.org/2016/10/anahe...s-against-hotel-projects-for-the-2018-ballot/

Anaheim does not offer primaries, just the general ballot in November. The person with the most votes wins, no majority required.

Well, that is enough info for now.

 

[DLR92]

The real reason why, there is no land available. Disney is having serious issues finding lots for parking (mainly cast members). No way can they get enough attached land and have parking. OK, if you convert the entire Toy Story /Katella CM lot to a third park, you don't have a place to build a new structure to replace all the parking lost. Yes, there is a plan to build a parking structure at the corner of Harbor and Ball to replace the ground level CM spaces. But they don't have the temporary spaces to move the cars during construction. So that might alleviate the CM issue. The new 4th Hotel will require a new structure or two to replace the parking lost, plus the additional spaces needed for the Hotel guests and CM's. So you build a new structure behind the Paradise Pier that would replace the old, poorly designed PPH structure and expand it to the corner of Katella and Disneyland Drive.

So even if you have a new council that favors business and Disney, there is no real way to get the needed land.

All we can hope for is additional expansion of DCA and Disneyland, which would require the relocation of more backstage facilities

If Disney was serious about a third park, they could have come to the table when the former military facilities in Tustin and Irvine came available. Too late now.

In your opinion, there will never be a third park for Anaheim?

 

[Darkbeer1]

In your opinion, there will never be a third park for Anaheim?

Yes, instead I can see up-charging, such as an additional fee for Galaxy's Edge.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/26/think-disneyland-is-crowded-now-wait-until-2019-2/

>>No one expects business as usual when the Star Wars and Nintendo lands open. Will Disney block out annual pass holders from visiting Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge for the land’s first months? Or will Disney make access to the land an up-charge from even regular, daily tickets? How much more expensive can a day at Disneyland get?<<

But a true full Third Park, no. The logistics in Anaheim just won't allow it.

Maybe another Disney owned hotel with a water park, similar to Great Wolf, maybe as part of a Toy Story makeover to a parking structure, which would open up about half the property.

Even if everyone on the city council was pro-Disney, there are too many issues. Taking over land using eminent domain. (One of the reasons the city actually built the Mickey and Friends Structure was due to the fact Disney couldn't get the owners to sell to them.) New state regulations (Environmental studies) and costs just won't work.

Besides, Disney now has a destination with Anaheim, and competition will have the same access as they do now. For example, universal Studios Hollywood just added Harry Potter land, and now will open Super Nintendo World as an addition to the main park, and not a separate gate,

LEGOLAND California is looking to remove the separate gate for their water park, adding it to the Main Ride Park. No decision has been made.

But in this age of electronics and computers, I do see Disneyland looking at placing a building north of the current park. (backstage) that could become a virtual reality facility, where you have a hefty surcharge to enter, and could be easily updated/changed to attract repeat visits.

But a true third park in the image of Disneyland or DCA, no, won't happen.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Let's look at all the tourism related things the city owns, runs and operates.

The Convention Center and Arena is owned by the city, and has set up an agency that runs it. The agreement that allowed the city to build it stated it has to be non-profit, so all profits are used to improve/enlarge the complex.

The city owns the Anaheim Resort Transportation, another non-profit agency, which hires a company (currently Transdev) to run the day to day operation. Since the Toy Story Shuttles run on city streets, it is actually an ART Route, in which Disney picks up the fares as a courtesy to its guests.

ARTIC, the overpriced Train Station is owned and operated by the city, but runs at a massive deficit. Interesting to note, much of the funding to pay the deficit came from the 2 percent assessment from the resort area hotel guests collected by the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District. The Tourism board is independent from the city, and when the current council started it anti-Disney, anti-business stance, the board said it had better uses for the funds and told the city it would not allocate any funds for ARTIC, since it didn't bring in any tourists.

Angel Stadium, the city owns the facility and the parking lot, and leases the day to day operations to the Baseball team, who gives some of the revenue for the baseball teams use of the stadium, parking fees, and concerts and motorsports events and other uses.

Honda Center, once again, the city owns the property, and leases it to the Hockey Team. The team also runs the arena's other events, which the city gets some of the revenue. Interesting to note, the city just entered into an agreement with the team to try and find sponsorship (naming rights) for ARTIC. The team would get a finder's fee if they find a deal that the city would approve.

The City National Grove of Anaheim, once again, owned by the city, day to day operations are handled by Nederlander Concerts.

The American Sports Center, home of the USA Volleyball and Badminton teams. Owned by the city, operated by Sports Anaheim, part of the Tourism Board. This is a main reason that Anaheim is part of the 2028 Summer Olympics being run by Los Angeles. Which should help hotel bookings, and Honda Center revenue.

So how much has Disney helped with these venues? Disney has rented the Convention Center and Arena for Stockholder meetings and D-23 events.

How about the Cheer/Dance events that are held in the city, including using the Convention Center Arena and Disneyland as venues.

How much does Disney pay the city for the use of its roads for its runDisney events.

How about when Disney uses Angel Stadium for overflow parking for CM's?

The city runs its own public utilities, so Disney pays the city for electrical and water. The city residents have some of the lowest rates due to the non-profit status of the agency. (So Cal Gas sells the natural gas to residents and businesses).

Disney pays the full costs including overhead for the full time officers assigned to Disney property, plus pays a rate based on the amount of traffic Disney generates to cover the police directing traffic to its properties on the city streets.

So if the city council is anti-Disney, anti-Tourism business (like the current one), they are doing harm to the city and its revenues. But UNITE Here and other unions need a "bad guy", so Disney gets the target placed on its back.

And as a Anaheim Resident, home owner and taxpayer, it makes me mad. If we supported the tourism more fully, the city would get more revenue, which can fund more police officers to deal with the Homeless issue, fund Code Enforcement to better handle the parking issues, and not need to rely on Disney for donations to improve its parks.

Yes, the city has a problem, and it starts with its leader, the Mayor,

Hopefully the residents have learned and will make better decisions next November (2018).

 

[mickEblu]

Yes, instead I can see up-charging, such as an additional fee for Galaxy's Edge.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/26/think-disneyland-is-crowded-now-wait-until-2019-2/

>>No one expects business as usual when the Star Wars and Nintendo lands open. Will Disney block out annual pass holders from visiting Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge for the land’s first months? Or will Disney make access to the land an up-charge from even regular, daily tickets? How much more expensive can a day at Disneyland get?<<

But a true full Third Park, no. The logistics in Anaheim just won't allow it.

Maybe another Disney owned hotel with a water park, similar to Great Wolf, maybe as part of a Toy Story makeover to a parking structure, which would open up about half the property.

Even if everyone on the city council was pro-Disney, there are too many issues. Taking over land using eminent domain. (One of the reasons the city actually built the Mickey and Friends Structure was due to the fact Disney couldn't get the owners to sell to them.) New state regulations (Environmental studies) and costs just won't work.

Besides, Disney now has a destination with Anaheim, and competition will have the same access as they do now. For example, universal Studios Hollywood just added Harry Potter land, and now will open Super Nintendo World as an addition to the main park, and not a separate gate,

LEGOLAND California is looking to remove the separate gate for their water park, adding it to the Main Ride Park. No decision has been made.

But in this age of electronics and computers, I do see Disneyland looking at placing a building north of the current park. (backstage) that could become a virtual reality facility, where you have a hefty surcharge to enter, and could be easily updated/changed to attract repeat visits.

But a true third park in the image of Disneyland or DCA, no, won't happen.

Since they re considering up charging for Star Wars Land, wouldn't the Simba lot have been a better idea? It could have been its own mini park and the Paradise Pier hotel could have been turned into a Star Wars hotel. That corner could have been a mini Star Wars resort. Is there some logistic reason that wasn't considered or are there some other plans ? I'm guessing the obvious, how much could they charge people to ride a couple rides? A 50$ add on?