Disneyland and Low Income Housing

[dwelty]

Please don't flame me. I just want to prompt a discussion about the Anaheim VS Disneyland affordable housing debate.

I am a former Disneyland Cast member. I worked there during college from 1987 thru 1991. (Adventureland/Frontierland attractions)

When Disneyland approached Anaheim about an expanded resort back in 1997 the Resort District general plan was formed. It was agreed by both parties that the area would be zoned for Resort/Hotel use. Both parties invested Millions of Dollars based on this agreement. Now Anaheim wants to change some zoning in this area to include low income housing.

Disneyland, Anaheim's Mayor, another city council member and many other resort related businesses in the area oppose this change.

I am not saying that low income housing is not needed, I just don't think it should be in that area. Anaheim is a big city, put the housing somewhere else.

It really bugs me that the news media is trying to make Disney out as the bad guy.

What do you all think?

 

[Quatro is enough]

I just don't think it should be in that area


Is that the same as not in my backyard? Anahiem as you said is a big city, where else should the low housing go? just asking.

eta: got it - who knows what's going on- mix in politics, both sides priorities, reality, and who knows when it will be resolved.

 

[1Prince2Princesses]

A big city seems like a great place for a low income housing area to me. Lots of work and public transportation are definitely a benefit to families struggling to get on their feet.

I'm curious why you think a big city is not the place for that kind of housing.

ETA: In reference to your question of what I think about Disney being made out as the bad guy - why are THEY opposing the change?

 

[jtoast]

If Disney has invested millions with the understanding that it would be zoned resort I think rezoning it and putting in low income housing is a pretty crappy thing to do.

It's not about NIMBY...its about the fact that they had an agreement and the city needs to honor it or return the investment dollars spent.

 

[Tiggeroo]

If Disney opposes this and is a major employer in the area and received many benefits from the city to expand, perhaps they should pay a wage in which their employees would not be eligible for low-income housing. I would bet a good deal of their employees if they applied would be eligible.

 

[ducklite]

If Disney has invested millions with the understanding that it would be zoned resort I think rezoning it and putting in low income housing is a pretty crappy thing to do.

It's not about NIMBY...its about the fact that they had an agreement and the city needs to honor it or return the investment dollars spent.

I have to agree with you. This isn't a case of NIMBY, this is a case of broken agreements after millions of dolalrs were invested by one party.

Anne

 

[1Prince2Princesses]

Okay, after rereading your original post, I think I may have misunderstood what you were saying. You were suggesting leaving the area around Disneyland zoned as it is and putting the low income housing in another part of Anaheim, correct?

I do agree that if Disneyland invested millions into the zoning that they have every right to oppose. They obviously will benefit more from resorts in that area than local housing.

 

[Tiggeroo]

I have to agree with you. This isn't a case of NIMBY, this is a case of broken agreements after millions of dolalrs were invested by one party.

Anne

OK I can see and concede this point. However, I do think it's hypocritical to pay your employees so poorly that they can't afford the housing near where they work and then have a problem with low-income housing.

 

[Tiffer]

I am not familiar with the agreement with DL and Anaheim. The agreement should be upheld. I would have to read the agreement to give a proper opinion. But keep inmind there is always eminent domain.

I lived in South Orange County and putting the housing in North Orange county, knowing the area, seems logical.

 

[ducklite]

OK I can see and concede this point. However, I do think it's hypocritical to pay your employees so poorly that they can't afford the housing near where they work and then have a problem with low-income housing.

If they were paid more then costs would go up and it would be more expensive to take a family to DL. Of course then Disney would be seen as the bad guy because they were shutting middle calss families out of vacationing at Disney. They can't win!

ETA--Nobody is forced to work at DL or anywhere else. If they are unhappy with the wages, then they should seek employment elsewhere. I am amazed how WDW CM's constantly gripe about what they are paid, yet they stay. A nearby McDonalds had a help wanted sign out the other day, no experience neccesary starting at $11/hr.

Anne

 

[Tiffer]

OK I can see and concede this point. However, I do think it's hypocritical to pay your employees so poorly that they can't afford the housing near where they work and then have a problem with low-income housing.

You are right, but the city agreed to it. ( I think anyway) That's where I have a problem with it.


FYI to all, CA real estate is VERY expensive and North OC, albeit expensive by comparison, IS the cheapest place to live, for the most part, in all of OC.

 

[Abby's Dad]

It is nothing against low-income housing, BUT Disney invested one heck of a lot of money based on a written plan, and paid a lot of money in taxes, and the City of Anaheim received tremendous benefit (financial and otherwise) by Disney being there. Are there any larger employers in the Anaheim area (and don't give me the low wage crap - if the people don't like the wage that is being paid, all they have to do is go find a better job - oh, none available? That's a good wage!). The only voice that should be counting in this decision is Disney's (But then again, there are other places that would like Disney - what would happen to Anaheim if Disney left? And what about those horribly low wages if Disney left?). Sorry, the 800 pound gorilla gets the vote that counts.

 

[mickeyfan2]

If Disney has invested millions with the understanding that it would be zoned resort I think rezoning it and putting in low income housing is a pretty crappy thing to do.

It's not about NIMBY...its about the fact that they had an agreement and the city needs to honor it or return the investment dollars spent.

 

[Anewman]

This project is not Low income housing.

it would actually reduce low-income housing on the property in question because it would tear down a mobile home park(considered low income) and replace it with a development containing less units labeled as low income than the park originally had.

I dont know the exact numbers but you can build 300 new homes, label 10 of them as low income and then cry to the press that Disney is against low income housing.

 

[jtoast]

Bah! now you made me go do research. back in a few with my results.

EDIT:
Ok...here are a few links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/b...e1e&ex=1337313600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1665887.php

I still side with Disney on this one. Apparently the city of Anaheim not only wants to put the housing in a place it previously agreed not to, it thinks that Disney should kick in money to build it.

 

[Stacerita]

The original agreement needs to be upheld.

 

[Database]

Bah! now you made me go do research. back in a few with my results.

EDIT:
Ok...here are a few links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/b...e1e&ex=1337313600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1665887.php

I still side with Disney on this one. Apparently the city of Anaheim not only wants to put the housing in a place it previously agreed not to, it thinks that Disney should kick in money to build it.

Thanks for providing the links. I'd read about this earlier on another board and came to the same conclusion.

 

[dwelty]

If Disney opposes this and is a major employer in the area and received many benefits from the city to expand, perhaps they should pay a wage in which their employees would not be eligible for low-income housing. I would bet a good deal of their employees if they applied would be eligible.

As a former Disneyland Cast Member I have to take issue with this comment.
Amusement park jobs are low skilled forms of employment. They are perfect jobs for College age kids and Retirees. These hourly jobs were never meant to be lifetime forms of income. (I would have loved to have been a Jungle Cruise skipper all of my life, but I knew that this was not a realistic plan).

Unemployment in Orange County is at an all time low. These people have every opportunity to look for other higher paying work, or they can work full time and go to night school. Disney should not have to pay because they made poor life decisions. The same goes for Orlando.

When I worked there all of the college age cast members called full time hourly employees "Life'ers" and they generaly (with some exceptions) were the most unenthusiastic, unpleasant people to work with. The Disney Magic had worn off long ago with these people, and I think it was in large part to the fact that they were trapped in a dead end job, that they had no one to blame for except themselves.

I still occasionally see a couple of people I worked with when I was a Cast Member in the late 80's. They are in there early 40's and have leads that are in their early 20's. I am embarrased when these interactions take place, and so are they. (I really feel sorry for them, but I don't blame Disney for it).