Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by crazy4wdw, Apr 25, 2007.
Zoning Change Allows For Low-Income Housing Near Disneyland
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
A bit of a twisted slant on the issue. A condo developer is going to provide a relatively small number of units (15% of the total number of units being built, and quite possibly a much smaller percentage of the square footage, as usually the low-income housing units are smaller than the average "regular" unit) for its residential project, and that makes it "Disney vs. low income housing" instead of "Disney vs. large developer."
C'mon. It's usual practice now in urban residential development that the developers agree to (or are required to) provide a limited number of low-income housing units in order to be allowed increased density on a site. The developers don't do it because they're incredibly civic-minded.
Except that Disney vs. large developer isn't accurate because Disney does support development. They just want a more upscale development that instead includes hotels and condos that would not likely include ANY "affordable" housing. Affordable being a relative term of course.
A little more detail from a Yahoo article. Have to laugh at Disney's new reason for opposing... Global Warming. Because condos and hotels would of course not contribute anything to global warming.
By the way, perhaps the most important thing to note in this is the more confrontational relationship between Anaheim and Disney.
The article you posted has a statement that Disney supports a hotel/upscale condo use on that property, but I wonder what that really means, in that Disney is also in that article against "non-tourist uses" (so perhaps that's a lot more hotel than condo in that mix that Disney supports).
How can they legally have that many people in a 1 bedroom? I do understand that things happen but
I'm guessing you're right, that its primarily hotel, timeshare, etc. that they support. That said, however, I'm sure there are also some contradictions in Disney's position.
Certainly they are using some confrontational tactics in this whole process. First they threatened (in a somewhat veiled and legal manner I'm sure) one of the council members with conflict of interest allegations to try to keep her (I think it was a her) from voting on the issue at all. It succeeded about a month ago, but I guess she got a contrary legal opinion from her or the city's lawyers.
Now Disney is throwing Global Warming into the debate, which borders on the ludicrous, and clearly has nothing to do with their real reason for opposing this particular development.
Yes, this kind of stuff goes on all the time between businesses and governments, but it is still siginficant in that Disney and the city have usually been able to resolve disagreements prior to them reaching this point.
I also think Disney is facing a tough battle in getting the residents to vote against the development. After all, it's a trailer park right now, and its apparently destined for some kind of development.
I don't care why the do it - only that they do it...
Does it matter why we feed and shelter those who need our aid? Or only that those people get fed and sheltered?
Of course I'm a bleeding heart liberal who actually does belive I am my brother's keeper.
Well heck - if they're so worried about this then they're gonna have to shut down the parks... esp WDW! I mean, look at all the traffic that produces - it's practically it's own privatly owned city...
Save your chest-beating. I wasn't making a commentary about the need for low-cost housing. I was commenting on the media's depiction of the nature of the dispute.
Low-income housing in that area will be a bad idea. CM's will not be able to afford that high "low-income houseing" and it will change the makeup of the area, it could even cause the Park to have less visitors than it already does.
If only we could bottle the rage and use it as a cheap source of energy for low income families.......
Have you seen Anaheim? Unless the housing is built on top of I-5. I don't see how it would even be possible to know the difference and of course, it's not exactly an urban paradise anyway.
Yes, I sure have. And I agree with you, however to add housing the way some people think, would be very bad. Picking a different location would be better.
Estimates say the "low income" range will be at $640,000.
These houses and others could be built int he platinum triangle where the zoning allows it and they at least would be away from the major tourist area.
Just wait if these 1500 units are built they will increase traffic and then later the same people that move in to them start protesting because the fireowrks, traffic and other noise is too much and disney should do something about it.
Bad idea all around.
Have you actually seen the area? Do you know what's going on?
The place is currently - and has been for a long time - a trailer park. It's surrounded by empty lots and abandomed building. The place is riddled with drug dealers, hookers, rats and homeless. All of this on land that Disney owns.
How - exactly - will a condo development with a few "low income" units is going cause the place to be worse??
But the land that Disney claims is for the "third park" is ALREADY surrounded by housing. The only reason the condo development is in the "resort district" was to accomidate Disney's desire to develop the strawberry field. The residents were there BEFORE Disney moved in. Do you think Disney has the right to simply destroy home values of existing neighborhoods?
I had no idea that things were so bad in Anaheim, but it could be argued that these are tourist amenities.
Gee, makes you wonder why the devloper wants to build a condo complex in the middle of a drug and hooker infested ghetto.
Who's going to want to buy an expensive condo and then have to dodge drive-bys to get home.
That's actually the point of the whole situation. While Disney has let its land decay into urban blight. there are scores of developers that want to do something with that land. Without the fake "resort" restrictions, the entire property will be developed in very short order. Orange County has been booming for over a decade now and it's not going to stop. The area around the stadium is being developed with housing, restaurants and street level retail. The area south, in Garden Grove, is booming with big new hotels and restaurants. The only rotten area is now Disney's property and the land suckered into the phony "resort zone". Disney doesn't want to develop the land and they'd rather see blight rather than have a competitor move close to their hotels.
Anaheim has finally had it Disney's politics and weaseling. So now the City Council is going about and properly running the city again.
Disney is happy with rot, the citizens of Anaheim aren't. Disney is, afterall, nothing but a business the plants keep telling us. Business means competition, and if Disney can't compete then it's time to let better run companies in.
Personally, I think that view is a bit melodramatic. Disney is neither evil or virtuous. It's just a business answerable to it's stockholders.
The developers are also just a business looking to earn a profit. They're offering the low income housing as a loss leader to convince the city council to change the zoning. Painting Disney as the big bad corporation trying to stomp the altruistic developers is just a little too soap opera. It's all merely modern business and political spin.
Given how things turned out with California Adventure, it's only natural that Disney would have put it's plans on hold. However, I do agree that Disney owes it to the city of Anaheim to come forward with it's intentions and make some sort of commitment in regard to maintaining the property it has bought if it wants Anaheim to continue to respect the resort zone agreement.
Personally, I think the best solution is to have the people of Anaheim vote on the issue. It's their city and they're the ones who will be most affected by the final decision.
However, if I lived in Anaheim I'd want to consider the fact that, once the condos are sold, developers will move on to another area. If Disney develops the property they'll be there to be answerable for how it affects the community. Love it or hate it, Disney is part of the Anaheim community.
You know it's a pity that tones don't travel through the internet well... there's no rage here at all...
The first part was true, and all I was saying is that I don't care if things get done to help the poor becaus someone somewhere either has to meet certain regulations (The builders someone was talking about earlier) or to improve their image (celberties everywhere) - as long as it gets done, who cares why?
Either way so long as what needs to get done, gets done - I'm good with it.
And if you're referring to the "bleeding heart liberal" - I was joking... teasing... tounge in cheek. The fact is I am amused with that title when applied to myself because the Right Wing Nazis all think I'm a liberal terroist, and the bleeding heart liberals all think I'm a right wing nazi...
Truth is I don't mind at all if Disney doesn't want low income housing set across from them, for many reasons I actually agree that it would be a bad idea... one of which was already mentioned - the cost of living in the area - along with the fact that it would be bad for Disney business, and that the traffic flow would be a bit much for those who ended up living in the residential areas.... after all Disney traffic tends to be excessive.
What does bother me is that Disney hasn't stated any of that (according to the articles I was given to read) that says any of that. They've given us such ridiculous responses as "Global Warming"... yeah right. So first Disney can't even be honest about their reasoning.
Second their tactics suck; threatinging someone with legal action, throwing their weight and money around to try to be the biggest bulley on the block? Why not hearald to the image of the company and try being honest and honerable... it wouldn't be hard.
Just say "yes, I do belive that this would be a bad move for Disney - for Disney, for our customers, and for those who would be moving in across the street, maybe worst of all for those moving across the street." couple that with action, like finding another site to recommend for the intended project and they could get what they want, help the people this project is intended to help and come off smelling like a rose... everybody wins.
But as for rage? No not really, so Disney has turned corrupt on us... oh well if I went into a rage and boycotted every company that I don't like I would have to live naked on the streets and eat Only Ben and Jerry's ice cream - because in America 2007, most all of them are corrupt. Me? I learned a long time ago to accept it, change it when I can - and just roll with it.
Separate names with a comma.