• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

The Anaheim Living Wage Initiative and other Disneyland Resort issues that deal with Anaheim Politics

Disney Irish Bruh

Well-Known Member
I wasn’t arguing that. I was saying the new ticket policy will limit attendance in the context of FOUR THEME PARKS in WDW. On any given day, people will decide to go based on prices and availability that are well known in advance. Thus, an artificial limitation.

Guess where the captive audience is from? The on-site hotels. I don’t get why you are not stating the obvious. Disneyland needs the same situation with more on-site hotels, which are the closest to the theme parks. People are more likely to eat at the resort if staying at the resort.
Even if they were to build the 4th Hotel (which we already know won't happen onsite) it still wouldn't prevent guests from walking a very short distance outside the resort. So the ROI is just not there.

DLR will never be the same as WDW its landlocked with the surrounding areas of Anaheim. Too much would have to happen, and too much money would have to be spent to do it, in order for DLR to get the same "Disney Bubble" as is in WDW. Only then would there be the ROI that is found in WDW.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Advertisement
A 4th and maybe a 5th or 6th Hotel will probably happen with ground breaking 10 years from now. And it won't be the design they shared earlier this year. A modified location for sure. So never say never. But no way for at least 4 or 5 years, and that is highly unlikely.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Even if they were to build the 4th Hotel (which we already know won't happen onsite) it still wouldn't prevent guests from walking a very short distance outside the resort. So the ROI is just not there.

DLR will never be the same as WDW its landlocked with the surrounding areas of Anaheim. Too much would have to happen, and too much money would have to be spent to do it, in order for DLR to get the same "Disney Bubble" as is in WDW. Only then would there be the ROI that is found in WDW.
The Disney restaurants are not equipped to handle all guests regardless. It just needs to support enough guests and remain full. Thus, the ROI will be realized with a marginal increase in revenue. Didn’t the local businesses complain about the Eastern Gateway not being accessible to the guests? Disney can change their design to make it appealing to guests so they won’t leave the resort area. Downtown Disney already has a wide range of restaurants from affordable like Earl of Sandwich to expensive 4 Star. They can walk to McDonald’s and Denny’s, but the Harbor businesses are a sad collection.
 

Disney Irish Bruh

Well-Known Member
The Disney restaurants are not equipped to handle all guests regardless. It just needs to support enough guests and remain full. Thus, the ROI will be realized with a marginal increase in revenue. Didn’t the local businesses complain about the Eastern Gateway not being accessible to the guests? Disney can change their design to make it appealing to guests so they won’t leave the resort area. Downtown Disney already has a wide range of restaurants from affordable like Earl of Sandwich to expensive 4 Star. They can walk to McDonald’s and Denny’s, but the Harbor businesses are a sad collection.
A marginal increase in revenue is not enough to move the needle in terms of a major investment like a 4th hotel. Also there are early indications the US economy is heading for a slowdown so starting a major investment like a 4th hotel now doesn't make sense. 6-12 months ago, yes, now no.

Guests are not isolated to only the Harbor businesses. They can also walk to GardenWalk to eat at those restaurants as well. Or a short Uber (assuming they don't have their own car) ride away to any number of upscale venues. So again a 4th hotel is not going to limit that and force guests to remain onsite. The "Disney Bubble" is always going to be limited in DLR, its just a fact.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
So realizing that walking across the street won’t matter too much, now you say they can take an Uber to GardenWalk, a failed mall.

Disney is really the only game in town with Downtown Disney. Then again, it’s just a weekend trip for most people unlike a trip to Orlando where it could be a week.
 

The_Mesh_Hatter

Well-Known Member
So realizing that walking across the street won’t matter too much, now you say they can take an Uber to GardenWalk, a failed mall.

Disney is really the only game in town with Downtown Disney. Then again, it’s just a weekend trip for most people unlike a trip to Orlando where it could be a week.
Just because Garden Walk is a ghost town doesn’t mean they don’t have food options that are just as good, if not better, than the DTD restaurants.
 

Disney Irish Bruh

Well-Known Member
So realizing that walking across the street won’t matter too much, now you say they can take an Uber to GardenWalk, a failed mall.

Disney is really the only game in town with Downtown Disney. Then again, it’s just a weekend trip for most people unlike a trip to Orlando where it could be a week.
The restaurants alongside GardenWalk itself appear to be doing just fine, so while the mall itself might have failed, those restaurants haven't. Those are what people are walking to.

The assertion that its the only game in town is unfounded, especially when by your own admission that the DLR is a weekend trip. And I'll even take that a step further, DLR is still and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a locals park. That may change in the future but not for a long while.
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
The restaurants alongside GardenWalk itself appear to be doing just fine, so while the mall itself might have failed, those restaurants haven't. Those are what people are walking to.

The assertion that its the only game in town is unfounded, especially when by your own admission that the DLR is a weekend trip. And I'll even take that a step further, DLR is still and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a locals park. That may change in the future but not for a long while.
I pointed out GardenWalk is a failed mall so it is clear it won’t be sufficient to pull people away from Disneyland if staying on-site. It’s exactly the same situation for a weekend trip because there’s not enough time to go off-site if you’re only there for a few days.

Downtown Disney is more fun and interesting than anything else in that area. People will only go off-site if they’re there for a longer trip.
 

Disney Irish Bruh

Well-Known Member
I pointed out GardenWalk is a failed mall so it is clear it won’t be sufficient to pull people away from Disneyland if staying on-site. It’s exactly the same situation for a weekend trip because there’s not enough time to go off-site if you’re only there for a few days.

Downtown Disney is more fun and interesting than anything else in that area. People will only go off-site if they’re there for a longer trip.
Clearly you know the DLR and Anaheim market and guest habits better than Disney and all the businesses around the DLR. :banghead:
 

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Clearly you know the DLR and Anaheim market and guest habits better than Disney and all the businesses around the DLR. :banghead:
Other hotel projects are coming on-line while Disney dawdles. Ignoring the 4 Star Hotels that may not happen, 3 hotel projects should already be open in 2018, the Westin, Cambria, and Hampton Inn.

In this 2015 report, “Nine New Hotels Opening in California’s Anaheim Resort District Adding Over 1,500 Guest Rooms“

If Disney is afraid to make the investment, then let other companies take the risk.
 

Disney Irish Bruh

Well-Known Member
Other hotel projects are coming on-line while Disney dawdles. Ignoring the 4 Star Hotels that may not happen, 3 hotel projects should already be open in 2018, the Westin, Cambria, and Hampton Inn.

In this 2015 report, “Nine New Hotels Opening in California’s Anaheim Resort District Adding Over 1,500 Guest Rooms“

If Disney is afraid to make the investment, then let other companies take the risk.
So either way Disney will still get money from those staying off-site. Basically it doesn't matter if other companies take the risk, Disney still wins.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
FYI, the Hilton Anaheim and Sheraton Park Hotels will have a one day informational strike by UNITE HERE 11, aka off duty employees on the strike line, on Wednesday.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Item 8 on the December 18th Council Agenda is dealing with the DLR, here is the staff report.

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20126/Staff Report20126.pdf

>>
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by Motion, determine on the basis of the evidence submitted by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 96-01 for the 2017-2018 review period.
DISCUSSION:
On October 22, 1996, the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney World Company (Disney) executed the attached Development Agreement (Agreement) that governs the development of The Disneyland Resort®. The Agreement includes development of a second theme park (Disney California Adventure), additional hotel and entertainment areas (Downtown Disney), administrative office facilities, back-of-house facilities, new public and private parking facilities, an internal transportation system, and the ongoing maintenance, enhancement and expansion of The Disneyland Resort. The Agreement has a 40-year term that expires in 2036. The Agreement covers all properties owned or controlled by Disney within the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP). The Agreement does not cover properties that Disney owns or controls outside of the boundaries of the DRSP. The attached map shows all of the Disney-controlled properties within The Anaheim Resort.

The Agreement is essentially a contract between the City and Disney that outlines the roles and responsibilities of both parties. It confers benefits and assigns various responsibilities, often times commonly referred to as “obligations." Section 3.1 of the Agreement specifies Disney’s seven obligations. The Agreement required Disney to comply with four of the seven obligations prior to the “Opening Day Project.” The “Opening Day Project” is defined in Section 1.45 and described in Exhibit F of the Agreement and includes Disney California Adventure theme park, Downtown Disney,and the Grand Californian hotel. Disney demonstrated to the City Council in February 2002 that Disney completed the four obligations with the 2001 opening of Disney California Adventure, Downtown Disney and the Grand Californian hotel.

As part of its 2006-2007 annual review of the Agreement, the City Council deemed a fifth obligation complete. This obligation pertained to right-of-way acquisition and dedication. The Agreement did not tie this obligation or the remaining two obligations to the Opening Day Project. Compliance with the remaining two obligations, related to the phasing of the “remaining development” and the Anaheim Jobs program, is determined on an ongoing basis by the City Council with its annual review. Disney’s representative has submitted the attached Annual Review letter, dated October 22, 2018. The letter outlines Disney’s activities and compliance within the reporting period (October 2017 through October 2018), including Disney’s performance concerning its remaining two obligations, described below.
Phasing of Remaining Development Beyond the Opening Day Project, Disney has the right, but is not obligated, to continue to develop the theme park, hotels and entertainment area in accordance with the development limits set forth in the DRSP. During the review period, Disney completed a variety of projects to support the new “Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge” land within the Disneyland theme park and Pixar Pier in Disney’s California Adventure. Also within the review period, Disney constructed and expanded various facilities throughout the theme parks as part of its annual capital improvement and park maintenance efforts.

Anaheim Jobs
The Agreement required Disney to develop and submit to the City an Anaheim Jobs program six months prior to the opening of the Disney California Adventure theme park and to maintain the program throughout the term of the Agreement. Staff has attached an updated report on the components of the current Anaheim Jobs program and the activities/events held during the reporting period. Activities include recruiting at local job fairs and at Anaheim Summer Movie nights, as well as posting flyers at Anaheim gathering places. The report also acknowledges the recent closure of businesses at the west end of Downtown Disney. Disney employees affected by the closures were offered other positions at the Disneyland Resort, the majority of whom accepted the positions, while some did not respond to employment offers or opted to seek employment elsewhere.

Staff carefully reviewed the Development Agreement and Disney’s Annual Review letter and found the property owner to be in full compliance with its obligations. Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Agreement for this review period.<<

And had the following attachments.

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20127/1. Annual Review Letter and Compliance Matrix20127.pdf

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20128/2. Anaheim Jobs Description20128.pdf

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20129/3. Development Agreement No. 96-0120129.pdf

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20130/4. Disney Properties Map20130.pdf
 

Dr. Hans Reinhardt

Well-Known Member
Item 8 on the December 18th Council Agenda is dealing with the DLR, here is the staff report.

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20126/Staff Report20126.pdf

>>
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by Motion, determine on the basis of the evidence submitted by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 96-01 for the 2017-2018 review period.
DISCUSSION:
On October 22, 1996, the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney World Company (Disney) executed the attached Development Agreement (Agreement) that governs the development of The Disneyland Resort®. The Agreement includes development of a second theme park (Disney California Adventure), additional hotel and entertainment areas (Downtown Disney), administrative office facilities, back-of-house facilities, new public and private parking facilities, an internal transportation system, and the ongoing maintenance, enhancement and expansion of The Disneyland Resort. The Agreement has a 40-year term that expires in 2036. The Agreement covers all properties owned or controlled by Disney within the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP). The Agreement does not cover properties that Disney owns or controls outside of the boundaries of the DRSP. The attached map shows all of the Disney-controlled properties within The Anaheim Resort.

The Agreement is essentially a contract between the City and Disney that outlines the roles and responsibilities of both parties. It confers benefits and assigns various responsibilities, often times commonly referred to as “obligations." Section 3.1 of the Agreement specifies Disney’s seven obligations. The Agreement required Disney to comply with four of the seven obligations prior to the “Opening Day Project.” The “Opening Day Project” is defined in Section 1.45 and described in Exhibit F of the Agreement and includes Disney California Adventure theme park, Downtown Disney,and the Grand Californian hotel. Disney demonstrated to the City Council in February 2002 that Disney completed the four obligations with the 2001 opening of Disney California Adventure, Downtown Disney and the Grand Californian hotel.

As part of its 2006-2007 annual review of the Agreement, the City Council deemed a fifth obligation complete. This obligation pertained to right-of-way acquisition and dedication. The Agreement did not tie this obligation or the remaining two obligations to the Opening Day Project. Compliance with the remaining two obligations, related to the phasing of the “remaining development” and the Anaheim Jobs program, is determined on an ongoing basis by the City Council with its annual review. Disney’s representative has submitted the attached Annual Review letter, dated October 22, 2018. The letter outlines Disney’s activities and compliance within the reporting period (October 2017 through October 2018), including Disney’s performance concerning its remaining two obligations, described below.
Phasing of Remaining Development Beyond the Opening Day Project, Disney has the right, but is not obligated, to continue to develop the theme park, hotels and entertainment area in accordance with the development limits set forth in the DRSP. During the review period, Disney completed a variety of projects to support the new “Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge” land within the Disneyland theme park and Pixar Pier in Disney’s California Adventure. Also within the review period, Disney constructed and expanded various facilities throughout the theme parks as part of its annual capital improvement and park maintenance efforts.

Anaheim Jobs
The Agreement required Disney to develop and submit to the City an Anaheim Jobs program six months prior to the opening of the Disney California Adventure theme park and to maintain the program throughout the term of the Agreement. Staff has attached an updated report on the components of the current Anaheim Jobs program and the activities/events held during the reporting period. Activities include recruiting at local job fairs and at Anaheim Summer Movie nights, as well as posting flyers at Anaheim gathering places. The report also acknowledges the recent closure of businesses at the west end of Downtown Disney. Disney employees affected by the closures were offered other positions at the Disneyland Resort, the majority of whom accepted the positions, while some did not respond to employment offers or opted to seek employment elsewhere.

Staff carefully reviewed the Development Agreement and Disney’s Annual Review letter and found the property owner to be in full compliance with its obligations. Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the property owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Agreement for this review period.<<

And had the following attachments.

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20127/1. Annual Review Letter and Compliance Matrix20127.pdf

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20128/2. Anaheim Jobs Description20128.pdf

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20129/3. Development Agreement No. 96-0120129.pdf

http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/17178/17208/17209/20125/20130/4. Disney Properties Map20130.pdf
I'm curious and far too lazy to sift through all the documents for the answer... how is it that there are properties within the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan boundary that are not Disney controlled? Shouldn't those areas be zoned in under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan or the Hotel Specific Plan? It's notable that Anaheim Garden Walk falls into this zoning.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'm curious and far too lazy to sift through all the documents for the answer... how is it that there are properties within the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan boundary that are not Disney controlled? Shouldn't those areas be zoned in under the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan or the Hotel Specific Plan? It's notable that Anaheim Garden Walk falls into this zoning.
The basic thing is that is a Planning Commission/Zoning document that gives many unique rights and agreed to by all land owners.
 

Dr. Hans Reinhardt

Well-Known Member
The basic thing is that is a Planning Commission/Zoning document that gives many unique rights and agreed to by all land owners.
Understood, but I don't think that answers my question. Perhaps you don't know the answer, but it's unclear to me how or why the 7 Eleven at the corner of Harbor and Katella, for instance, is lumped into the Disneyland Resort zone and not the Anaheim Resort zone.

Capture.jpg
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Understood, but I don't think that answers my question. Perhaps you don't know the answer, but it's unclear to me how or why the 7 Eleven at the corner of Harbor and Katella, for instance, is lumped into the Disneyland Resort zone and not the Anaheim Resort zone.

View attachment 333320
Once again, the agreement for the DLR zone had to be approved by all property owners included in the zone. Since Disney was hoping to maybe buy the properties in the future, and the non-Disney owners agreed, as they got some more flexibility, all parties agreed.

For example, it allowed the Candy Cane Inn to keep running its own shuttle, instead of switching to ART.

The Paradise Pier Owners did not agree, and why it is in the ARSP instead.
 
Top Bottom