Principal Author of Anaheim’s Living Wage Law Says Disney’s Not Exempt - OC Weekly

[PB Watermelon]

Disney's Texas Adventure

If only San Antonio had an airport and highway infrastructure capable of dealing with a Disney theme park....not to mention Six Flags and Sea World would @#$% their pants...

 

[Disney Irish]

The stars at night are big and bright...deep in the heart of Texas.

I don't see Texas as a spot they'd look.

If Disney were to ever look, and not saying they ever would. But if they were to ever look outside of CA and FL for another domestic resort I think they would go to a place where they could setup their own municipality again. And I don't see Texas being willing to allow Disney to create a new municipality.

Disney learned from both the issues in Anaheim and how they don't have to deal with them in Reedy Creek, having your own governing body is better than having to deal with another governing body.

 

[PB Watermelon]

I don't see Texas as a spot they'd look.

If Disney were to ever look, and not saying they ever would. But if they were to ever look outside of CA and FL for another domestic resort I think they would go to a place where they could setup their own municipality again. And I don't see Texas being willing to allow Disney to create a new municipality.

Disney learned from both the issues in Anaheim and how they don't have to deal with them in Reedy Creek, having your own governing body is better than having to deal with another governing body.

They've looked. My brother-in-law runs a business laying down utilities, and Disney was specifically eyeing a certain region I won't name (cough, central Texas, cough, up the 281, way northwest of Austin, cough, past Marble Falls, cough) and Disney ultimately passed because of infrastructure and airport access, but yeah -- Disney had their eyes on Texas, or did, ten years ago.

 

[TROR]

I think they should go back and look at St. Louis like Walt once planned.

 

[Disney Irish]

They've looked. My brother-in-law runs a business laying down utilities, and Disney was specifically eyeing a certain region I won't name (cough, central Texas, cough, up the 281, way northwest of Austin, cough, past Marble Falls, cough) and Disney ultimately passed because of infrastructure and airport access, but yeah -- Disney had their eyes on Texas, or did, ten years ago.

I don't doubt they did an inquiry. But what I doubt is that it was a serious look. Meaning an actually business plan was developed with Texas in mind.

I'm sure that they put out inquiries to many states as feelers, but I doubt it ever gets beyond that inquiry phase.

I mean I could be wrong, but I think Disney America was the last time they even had a serious look.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't see Texas as a spot they'd look.

If Disney were to ever look, and not saying they ever would. But if they were to ever look outside of CA and FL for another domestic resort I think they would go to a place where they could setup their own municipality again. And I don't see Texas being willing to allow Disney to create a new municipality.

Disney learned from both the issues in Anaheim and how they don't have to deal with them in Reedy Creek, having your own governing body is better than having to deal with another governing body.

The Reedy Creek Improvement District does not have sovereignty and the two municipalities don’t do much. The improvement district can be dissolved by the state and it is not exempt from all state and county legislation. The All Star Resorts and Celebration come out of Osceola County seeking to change Disney’s property tax status in the mid-to-late 1980s. While neither county gets the land use decision making power that stalled the Eastern Gateway, both could impose taxes and a minimum wage.

 

[Disney Irish]

The Reedy Creek Improvement District does not have sovereignty and the two municipalities don’t do much. The improvement district can be dissolved by the state and it is not exempt from all state and county legislation. The All Star Resorts and Celebration come out of Osceola County seeking to change Disney’s property tax status in the mid-to-late 1980s. While neither county gets the land use decision making power that stalled the Eastern Gateway, both could impose taxes and a minimum wage.

This is the point I was trying to make.

My understanding is that because it is an incorporated area with its own governing body they don't have the same issues they have with Anaheim. And the majority of the parks reside within this incorporated area now called Bay Lake.

So instead of filing permits with city officials that have their own agenda, they file it with the county, which basically just rubber stamps it. Which means they would have been able to push through the EGW project without objection.

So my point is that Disney, if they were to serious look into it, would likely be looking for a similar environment to setup another domestic resort. So they way they don't have to deal with the same issues as they have with Anaheim.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is the point I was trying to make.

My understanding is that because it is an incorporated area with its own governing body they don't have the same issues they have with Anaheim. And the majority of the parks reside within this incorporated area now called Bay Lake.

So instead of filing permits with city officials that have their own agenda, they file it with the county, which basically just rubber stamps it. Which means they would have been able to push through the EGW project without objection.

So my point is that Disney, if they were to serious look into it, would likely be looking for a similar environment to setup another domestic resort. So they way they don't have to deal with the same issues as they have with Anaheim.

The Eastern Gateway needed approval because it was outside Disney’s established domain. No such approvals were needed for the west side projects (fourth hotel and garage). The Reedy Creek Improvement District also has defined boundaries and Bay Lake is pretty much irrelevant. While zoning in the District can not be interefered with, the counties still have means of interfering and the state can always dissolve the district.

 

[Disney Irish]

The Eastern Gateway needed approval because it was outside Disney’s established domain. No such approvals were needed for the west side projects (fourth hotel and garage). The Reedy Creek Improvement District also has defined boundaries and Bay Lake is pretty much irrelevant. While zoning in the District can not be interefered with, the counties still have means of interfering and the state can always dissolve the district.

Just because the county and the state can interfere, doesn't mean they will. As long as the money keeps rolling in they don't have a reason to interfere. Disney basically has free reign there.

Its like Nevada, the casinos basically do what they want with little interference.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Just because the county and the state can interfere, doesn't mean they will. As long as the money keeps rolling in they don't have a reason to interfere. Disney basically has free reign there.

Its like Nevada, the casinos basically do what they want with little interference.

And up entire recently the same could be said of the City of Anaheim.

 

[Disney Irish]

And up entire recently the same could be said of the City of Anaheim.

There is less likely for any of the political issues that have happened in Anaheim to happen in FL. Sure you could get a sweeping change in the political winds in FL that goes all the way from the state down to the country and even Bay Lake itself. But that would have to be some major change in FL politics for that to happen.

Point is that Disney currently has nothing to worry about politically with FL. So the rubber stamp keeps stamping.

 

[MisterPenguin]

A new Disney destination needs its own county.

No wait, an unincorporated island.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There is less likely for any of the political issues that have happened in Anaheim to happen in FL. Sure you could get a sweeping change in the political winds in FL that goes all the way from the state down to the country and even Bay Lake itself. But that would have to be some major change in FL politics for that to happen.

Point is that Disney currently has nothing to worry about politically with FL. So the rubber stamp keeps stamping.

Constantly name dropping Bay Lake isn’t helping you. It wouldn’t be a major change and such sentiments against Disney have arisen before. The Disney Springs parking garages drew plenty of negative attention towards the District.

 

[Disney Irish]

Constantly name dropping Bay Lake isn’t helping you. It wouldn’t be a major change and such sentiments against Disney have arisen before. The Disney Springs parking garages drew plenty of negative attention towards the District.

But did it get blocked? Negative attention doesn't mean that the political machine blocks it which is basically what happened in Anaheim.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

You don't know your park history, that's obvious. Burbank turned down Disney's application for appropriate zoning.

Your rebuttal to the second point is ludicrous. Disney provides jobs with a known wage and no one is forced to work there. You also see the effects of what extractive legislation does for the company's expenditure plans.. the new luxury hotel iproject is gone and Downtown Disney is reverting to what it was before the expansion was announced.

The Kim Jung-Un applause is appropriate : government command economy

Oh, please. Spare me the knee-jerk reactionary pro-business-at-all-costs ideology.

Building a theme park next to the Disney Studios was ludicrous. It was completely out of scale for the neighborhood and Walt's ideas quickly outgrew the land available.

And can you get anymore jargony than "extractive legislation". You want government to give Disney incentives, but you don't want any conditions on them. "Anaheim provides tax incentives but Disney isn't forced to take them". Shoe meet other foot.

 

[PB Watermelon]

I don't doubt they did an inquiry. But what I doubt is that it was a serious look. Meaning an actually business plan was developed with Texas in mind.

I'm sure that they put out inquiries to many states as feelers, but I doubt it ever gets beyond that inquiry phase.

I mean I could be wrong, but I think Disney America was the last time they even had a serious look.

Absolutely right. My bro-in-law got really excited though, even when I told him it wasn't going to happen.

 

[nevol]

This is the point I was trying to make.

My understanding is that because it is an incorporated area with its own governing body they don't have the same issues they have with Anaheim. And the majority of the parks reside within this incorporated area now called Bay Lake.

So instead of filing permits with city officials that have their own agenda, they file it with the county, which basically just rubber stamps it. Which means they would have been able to push through the EGW project without objection.

So my point is that Disney, if they were to serious look into it, would likely be looking for a similar environment to setup another domestic resort. So they way they don't have to deal with the same issues as they have with Anaheim.

The biggest question regarding a third domestic resort, is why? The less resorts they have, the more profitable the existing ones in the market are. It isn't like they are running out of space in Orlando, are fully occupied, or have fully built out those parks yet. They can barely bother to fix up epcot; what makes anybody think they seriously would be interested in starting over? This comes up once a week. Thank you though @PB Watermelon for actually providing some juicy new information regarding disney scoping out real estate halfway between Dallas/FW and Austin.

 

[nevol]

Oh, please. Spare me the knee-jerk reactionary pro-business-at-all-costs ideology.

Building a theme park next to the Disney Studios was ludicrous. It was completely out of scale for the neighborhood and Walt's ideas quickly outgrew the land available.

And can you get anymore jargony than "extractive legislation". You want government to give Disney incentives, but you don't want any conditions on them. "Anaheim provides tax incentives but Disney isn't forced to take them". Shoe meet other foot.

Exactly. Orlando works for WDW because they have been granted certain freedoms from government, regarding things like land use, zoning, and building practices just enough that they have creative freedoms not common around the US. However, Anaheim almost matched Disney dollar for Dollar when Disney built the Disneyland Resort/DCA by fixing up the resort district and adding new freeway access, roads, and a parking structure. All over the Paris region, you see signs for Disneyland Paris; at the airport, on the highways, at train stations. The French government built major infrastructure including heavy rail to connect Disneyland paris to the rest of the city, in a location equidistant from the city center and the airport, forming a near-perfect triangle. They partner with foreign governments in China. Disney parks are a massive enterprise that rely very heavily on cooperative government partners, which most of the time are more hands on than the Orlando model (which seems hands-off now, but because of hard work and negotiations that took place 50 years ago). They simply cannot function without it, or aren't willing to. The hands-off free enterprise myth doesn't work in this case. Disney would never pay to widen roads around anaheim even if they had the ability to. They wouldn't pay to widen the 5 freeway between LA and Anaheim. They don't want to pay for a train from the Artic to the resort. etcetcetc. This is where taxpayer dollars come into play. It isn't worthwhile to any single private entity to put up the investment for something that expensive, even when they benefit. Infrastructure benefits the region as a collective whole, accelerates all other business and makes life possible, and therefore the costs of the investment are shared collectively in the form of taxes.

It is far easier to run a theme park when you locate it in an area with a well-funded government providing infrastructure, from electricity and plumbing all the way up to roadways, freeways, public transit, (and international airports, and in today's day and age, telecommunications and GPS that we all rely on). If the government does its job correctly, likely only possible when the city/region/country has a healthy economy and domestic peace, then the theme park is accessible to people with expendable incomes and can make money that becomes profit, creates jobs, and generates tax dollars for the partners that made it all possible by agreeing to put up billions in infrastructure in the first place to let this whole thing happen.

The only issue right now in anaheim is that the current government seems to have momentarily forgotten who pays for the party. Anaheim and Disney are ultimately partners, and when disneyland grows and profits, more jobs and tax dollars are generated and everybody succeeds. The city needs to realize once again that stopping disney dead in its tracks year after year will only result in delaying or stopping the growth in revenues, number of jobs, the value of real estate, and the reason that other developers would want to invest in the resort district. The other looming issue, wages, is a consequence of the cost of living/quality of life here in southern california as a consequence of its regional housing shortage. Another instance where unrelated government matters can affect the viability of a theme park. Orlando won't run into this real estate crisis turned employee compensation battle anytime soon. The region needs to be more collaborative in its approach to this problem, so that we can solve it collectively for the benefit of everybody who lives works and does business in the region. The enemy of Unite Here isn't Disney, though that is their opponent by design as a labor union. The real issue is cost of living, and even if they have their way with the wage issue, they will do nothing to address the root cause of their union members' problems, and it'll be at the expense of the private enterprise upon whose success they rely.

 

[PB Watermelon]

I wish I could like that post a thousand times. One will have to do.

 

[Disney Irish]

The biggest question regarding a third domestic resort, is why? The less resorts they have, the more profitable the existing ones in the market are. It isn't like they are running out of space in Orlando, are fully occupied, or have fully built out those parks yet. They can barely bother to fix up epcot; what makes anybody think they seriously would be interested in starting over? This comes up once a week. Thank you though @PB Watermelon for actually providing some juicy new information regarding disney scoping out real estate halfway between Dallas/FW and Austin.

I've said before, I really don't believe it'll actually happen. However if Anaheim investment is stopped because it no longer makes sense either for political or logistical reasons, they may consider it.

The why is easy, which I've also said before, to provide access to a Disney Resort for those that either don't have the means or don't want to travel to either CA or FL. And in turn grows revenue for P&R by growing attendance domestically. There is no reason to believe that expanding to a 3rd domestic resort would cause profits to drop, even at DLR or WDW.