The Miscellaneous Thought Thread

SuddenStorm

Well-Known Member
It seems like in the last year or so, complaints about strollers at Disneyland have become fairly common online. Photos of the double wide strollers, strollers with 10 year old kids inside them, etc. are popular when trying to point the finger at others for crowding issues.

Just saw this photo on Daveland from decades ago- and spotted a vintage double wide in the bottom right. I wonder if they were as offensive then as they are now?

1539645917311.png
 

Maeryk

Well-Known Member
It seems like in the last year or so, complaints about strollers at Disneyland have become fairly common online. Photos of the double wide strollers, strollers with 10 year old kids inside them, etc. are popular when trying to point the finger at others for crowding issues.

Just saw this photo on Daveland from decades ago- and spotted a vintage double wide in the bottom right. I wonder if they were as offensive then as they are now?

View attachment 320244

That doublewide doesn't take up nearly the space that the rental.. or the giant Eddie Bauer off road and mountain climber doublewides do. The other issue is just volume. Go back and look at crowd photos from the 70s and 80s.. there aren't nearly as many strollers. Add up the stroller increase, the size increase of said strollers, and scooters.. and you see why people gripe. (That and people with strollers who think they can just park em wherever).
 
D

Deleted member 107043

I wonder if they were as offensive then as they are now?

For me the issue really has never been exclusively about the size of the strollers, it's also the sheer number of them today.

strollers6.jpg



SUV sized strollers + increased crowding since the 70s, and an assortment of other poor operational decisions since then, have definitely diminished the experience in my opinion.
 

Model3 McQueen

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Do you know anything about this @Darkbeer1?



Disney buys the lot, builds a few multi - story parking garages and has a monorail / light rail line down Katella Ave and Harbor Blvd connecting it with the parks, thus freeing up some space with the current parking situation and somehow expanding the parks / Disney presence in the area...

Hey, one can dream :)
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
Yes. The Angels HAD to break the lease or wait 10 years.

That said, the Angels have multiple options including moving out of town.

Currently they are the secondary team in the LA market.

If anyone would step up to the plate with a NEW Stadium, well it is a good bet.

Honolulu has been mentioned, but not enough locals.

Vegas is on the radar.

Locally Tustin is in play.

But I think the Angels would be happy with a 5 year lease in Anaheim while things calm now.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2018/10/16/angels-opt-out-of-stadium-lease-with-anaheim/

>>
The Angels today announced they are opting out of their stadium lease with the City of Anaheim, which owns the 52-year old stadium.


“As we look to the future, we need the ability to continue to deliver a high-quality fan experience beyond what the original lease allows,” Angels president John Carpino said in a statement. “It is important that we look at all our options and how we can best serve our fans now and in the future.”


An Angels spokesperson noted that under the terms of the lease, the opt-out clause had to be exercised by today, or else the team would locked into the current lease until 2028.


Negotiations between the team and the Angels broke down in 2014 after Mayor Tom Tait in the wake of an acrimonious public campaign the mayor mounted attacking a council-approved negotiation framework memorandum of understanding as a “taxpayer giveaway.” Tait also engineered the firing of the city’s chief negotiator Charles Black and his replacement with the Wylie Aitken of Aitken, Aitken and Cohn.


Aitken’s daughter Ashleigh, who also works for Aitken, Aitken and Cohn, is currently running for mayor of Anaheim.


Another mayoral candidate, gadfly Cynthia Ward, contributed to the breakdown in negotiations by suing the city in 2013 over the Angels MOU.


What does the Angels’ decision mean? Practically speaking, they have one more season at Angel Stadium. After, they’ll have no more rights to use the stadium.


Owner Arte Moreno could have asked the city for an extension, but did not. It speaks volumes about how the city has come to be seen as an adversarial and faithless bargaining partner that he would rather take his chances finding a different venue for his team for the 2020 season.


Given the treatment being meted out to Disney and Resort hoteliers by the Tait-Moreno majority, is Moreno’s decision really that surprising?


After Disney had the rug pulled out from under its 4-Diamond hotel project by the Tait-Moreno majority, the mantra was “Disney will build the hotel anyway.”


The same people said the Angels would never opt out of their lease. And now they have.


UPDATED: Mayoral candidate Harry Sidhu released this statement regarding the Angels’ decision:


As Mayor, I will fight to keep the Angels in Anaheim. The Angels are an important asset to Anaheim. I will change the political environment and keep the Angels in Anaheim where they belong.

I am disappointed that they felt the need to opt out of the lease and explore their options, but it is not surprising in light of the hostile political environment in Anaheim. It is time for new leadership at City Hall that will work hard to keep our top business partners, jobs, and revenue in Anaheim.<<​
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom