Disneyland is not trying "to keep low income housing out of Anaheim"

[Horace Horsecollar]

I have a few comments about how the number one news story was reported on the August 28 DIS Unplugged podcast. The story is about the status of the proposed residential condominium development (including 15% affordable units) in the Anaheim Resort District.

I'm not trying to nitpick or to attack Pete Werner. (I think highly of Pete Werner, and I enjoy the DIS Unplugged podcasts.) I just think the facts should be accurately conveyed. There are legitimately two sides to this dispute.

Near the beginning of the podcast, Pete Werner said, "We'll tell you about the top news stories on the DIS, including the latest on Disneyland's ongoing battle to keep low income housing out of Anaheim."

About 16 minutes into the podcast, Pete Werner said, "At the heart of the issue are plans by a California developer, SunCal, to build 1500 residential units in an area adjacent to the Anaheim Resort District."

Disneyland Resort management is not attempting "to keep low income housing out of Anaheim." There is a small (about 2 square miles), specially zoned section of Anaheim called the Anaheim Resort District. It's less than 5% of Anaheim's land area. The purpose of this district -- which includes the Disneyland Resort, the Anaheim Convention Center, the Anaheim Garden Walk, a bunch of hotels and restaurants, and very limited space for additional development and redevelopment -- is to attract and serve visitors.

Disneyland Resort management wants the Anaheim Resort District to be used as it is intended.

The proposed development is not adjacent to the Anaheim Resort District. This is a case of a developer trying to use property within the Anaheim Resort District for a nonconforming purpose. If the proposed development were simply adjacent to the Resort District, Disneyland would have no reason to object. I doubt that Disneyland Resort management is opposed to affordable housing in the other 95% on Anaheim, or in other nearby cities such as Garden Grove or Orange.

For Disneyland's side of the story, see "Save Our Anaheim Resort District" (SOAR), sponsored by the Disneyland Resort, at http://soaranaheim.com/

For SunCal's side of the story, see "The Anaheim Defender," sponsored by SCC Acquisitions (a part of SunCal), at http://www.weareanaheim.com/

 

[UrsulasShadow]

That does make it clearer why Disney is so persistent in their objections. I think I'll look further into this.

 

[disneyholic family]

thanks for the clarification! I was having trouble following the story.

 

[DiRTyBuNNy]

I have a few comments about how the number one news story was reported on the August 28 DIS Unplugged podcast. The story is about the status of the proposed residential condominium development (including 15% affordable units) in the Anaheim Resort District.

I'm not trying to nitpick or to attack Pete Werner. (I think highly of Pete Werner, and I enjoy the DIS Unplugged podcasts.) I just think the facts should be accurately conveyed. There are legitimately two sides to this dispute.

Near the beginning of the podcast, Pete Werner said, "We'll tell you about the top news stories on the DIS, including the latest on Disneyland's ongoing battle to keep low income housing out of Anaheim."

About 16 minutes into the podcast, Pete Werner said, "At the heart of the issue are plans by a California developer, SunCal, to build 1500 residential units in an area adjacent to the Anaheim Resort District."

Disneyland Resort management is not attempting "to keep low income housing out of Anaheim." There is a small (about 2 square miles), specially zoned section of Anaheim called the Anaheim Resort District. It's less than 5% of Anaheim's land area. The purpose of this district -- which includes the Disneyland Resort, the Anaheim Convention Center, the Anaheim Garden Walk, a bunch of hotels and restaurants, and very limited space for additional development and redevelopment -- is to attract and serve visitors.

Disneyland Resort management wants the Anaheim Resort District to be used as it is intended.

The proposed development is not adjacent to the Anaheim Resort District. This is a case of a developer trying to use property within the Anaheim Resort District for a nonconforming purpose. If the proposed development were simply adjacent to the Resort District, Disneyland would have no reason to object. I doubt that Disneyland Resort management is opposed to affordable housing in the other 95% on Anaheim, or in other nearby cities such as Garden Grove or Orange.

For Disneyland's side of the story, see "Save Our Anaheim Resort District" (SOAR), sponsored by the Disneyland Resort, at http://soaranaheim.com/

For SunCal's side of the story, see "The Anaheim Defender," sponsored by SCC Acquisitions (a part of SunCal), at http://www.weareanaheim.com/

I could go on and on about this issue but political debates usually just turn into big wee-wee contests so I'll just let this one go.

--Mr. DB

 

[SamIAm21]

I also read an excellent article by Al Lutz of miceage.com a few days ago about what Disney is doing with California Adventure, the new Garden Walk, and the new proposed "third gate". He also delves a bit into the situation with the Anaheim City Counsel.

For anyone out there that loves Disneyland, this 8/28/07 article is a must read. It's very exciting what's going on out there, with or without this third gate. But, after reading this article, you can see why Disney would love to have this third gate area and why a low cost housing development may not fit into that area. I'm not against low income housing as I think everyone deserves the opportunity to own their own home, whether you work at Von's or in the upper echelons of corporate America.

I hope this issue is settled amicably.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I could go on and on about this issue but political debates usually just turn into big wee-wee contests so I'll just let this one go.

--Mr. DB

I'm not sure what Mr. DB is saying, or how it relates to what I posted at the top of this thread.

I'm not debating. I'm just clarifying facts. SunCal's proposed condo development is within the 5% of Anaheim that was zoned for tourist-serving uses as the Anaheim Resort District in 1994. The SunCal site not just "adjacent" to the Anaheim Resort District. Also, Disney's objection to the condos is not an effort to keep "low cost housing" out of Anaheim in general.

It's all economics. Disney wants to see the Anaheim Resort District filled with attractive hotels and timeshares that feed guests to the Disneyland Resort. SunCal feels that they can maximize the value of their land with residential condominium development, even though the land is within the Anaheim Resort District zoning area.

I'm not even taking sides, although I think Disneyland has the stronger case.

For anyone out there that loves Disneyland, this 8/28/07 article is a must read. It's very exciting what's going on out there, with or without this third gate. But, after reading this article, you can see why Disney would love to have this third gate area and why a low cost housing development may not fit into that area. I'm not against low income housing as I think everyone deserves the opportunity to own their own home, whether you work at Von's or in the upper echelons of corporate America.

I agree that Al Lutz's August 28 MiceAge article is worth reading.

SunCal's proposed development is not on Disney-owned property, and it doesn't impact Disney's ability to develop their third park site (southeast of Harbor & Katella).

The whole "low cost housing" angle is just serving to confuse the issue. SunCal wants to build a high-density residential condominium complex with 1500 units -- with just 15% of those categorized as "affordable."

 

[DiRTyBuNNy]

I'm not sure what Mr. DB is saying, or how it relates to what I posted at the top of this thread.

I'm not debating. I'm just clarifying facts. SunCal's proposed condo development is within the 5% of Anaheim that was zoned for tourist-serving uses as the Anaheim Resort District in 1994. The SunCal site not just "adjacent" to the Anaheim Resort District. Also, Disney's objection to the condos is not an effort to keep "low cost housing" out of Anaheim in general.

It's all economics. Disney wants to see the Anaheim Resort District filled with attractive hotels and timeshares that feed guests to the Disneyland Resort. SunCal feels that they can maximize the value of their land with residential condominium development, even though the land is within the Anaheim Resort District zoning area.

I'm not even taking sides, although I think Disneyland has the stronger case.


I agree that Al Lutz's August 28 MiceAge article is worth reading.

SunCal's proposed development is not on Disney-owned property, and it doesn't impact Disney's ability to develop their third park site (southeast of Harbor & Katella).

The whole "low cost housing" angle is just serving to confuse the issue. SunCal wants to build a high-density residential condominium complex with 1500 units -- with just 15% of those categorized as "affordable."

Sorry, Horace..I kept writing and rewriting my post over and over and came to the conclusion that no matter what I said I was going to make someone angry...so I'll just lay all my cards out:

Anyone who thinks that SunCal is doing this to benefit low income families is a moron (btw, do you realize that low income housing would still be out of the price range of just about all disney hourly employees if it were to go through?)...Disney has a right to be angry...the Anaheim City Council set aside portions of land for a specific use and now out of spite and greed they're changing their minds just to stick it to Disney...

--Mr. DB

 

[SamIAm21]

I do believe DirtyBunny is right about Anaheim trying to stick it to Disney. It most likely has to do with the I-5 off ramp that Disney built that basically funnels cars right into its parking lots. This keeps a lot of the Disney tourists dollars on property and they don't leak out quite as easily onto Harbor Blvd. This does hurt the local economy on Harbor and Katella.

This was an observation explored in this article over at Jim Hill Media. All very interesting reading.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_h...rs-are-making-it-off-property-these-days.aspx

 

[DiRTyBuNNy]

I do believe DirtyBunny is right about Anaheim trying to stick it to Disney. It most likely has to do with the I-5 off ramp that Disney built that basically funnels cars right into its parking lots. This keeps a lot of the Disney tourists dollars on property and they don't leak out quite as easily onto Harbor Blvd. This does hurt the local economy on Harbor and Katella.

This was an observation explored in this article over at Jim Hill Media. All very interesting reading.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_h...rs-are-making-it-off-property-these-days.aspx

I lived in Southern California for 28 years and had gone to Disneyland 100+ times before my move to East Tennessee. Anaheim is caca...before or after the I-5 ramp was put in. It's not like I ever did anything in Anaheim other than Disneyland or go to the Orange Mall (that was my ex's idea). It's like the ACC is trying to punish Disney for their own stupidness. You guys approved the ramp and it passed through CalTrans; what did you think was going to happen? People were going to just drive around seedy hotels and stores looking for tourist junk instead of just going home?

We're all dumb animals. If we can get out of a parking lot and get straight on the freway and head home we're going to. I mean did they honestly think people were going to come out of the Mickey & Friends super parking lot and just drive around dear old Anaheim? Heck no..if I wasn't going straight home I was driving to Buena Park and Knotts Berry Farm to get a chicken dinner (which if you haven't done..you really need to...best chicken I've ever eaten and I live in the south now).

The ACC needs to admit that they made the mistake and move on. Don't try to stick it to Disney because they were too short-sided to realize what was going on. They beat you at your own game and now you want to take your ball and go play with someone else.

--Mr. DB

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

I do believe DirtyBunny is right about Anaheim trying to stick it to Disney. It most likely has to do with the I-5 off ramp that Disney built that basically funnels cars right into its parking lots. This keeps a lot of the Disney tourists dollars on property and they don't leak out quite as easily onto Harbor Blvd. This does hurt the local economy on Harbor and Katella.

Disneyland management wants both.

Disneyland management wants Los Angeles-area locals to have easy access into the Mickey & Friends parking structure without clogging surrounding streets (and that's why the ramps were built).

And Disneyland management also wants the Anaheim Resort District to have new, attractive, inviting hotels and timeshare resorts whose guests will buy 5-day Park Hopper tickets every week, all year long.

SunCal has managed to convince some affordable housing advocates that SunCal represents the good guys and Disneyland represents the bad guys, even though only 15% of their 1500 units would be "affordable" (and "affordable" doesn't mean affordable by hourly cast members).

There's an article at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5046086.html that does a pretty good job describing both sides of the issue, and how Anaheim city council members are divided over this issue.

SunCal wants to make as much money as possible. Disneyland wants to make as much money as possible.

To sway public opinion, SunCal is not only playing the "low cost housing" card; they're also playing the "private property rights" card. SunCal claims that Disney is trying to tell them what they can and can't do with land that doesn't belong to Disney. That sounds like a good argument on the surface. True, Disney was instrumental in Anaheim's zoning change in 1994. And now all property owners in the Resort District, not just Disney, are under those zoning restrictions.

Zoning is a legitimate government activity. If SunCal bought the land after the zoning change, they knew exactly what the zoning allowed. If they bought before the zoning change, their land is undoubtedly much more valuable now because of the many improvements and investments that have been made in the Resort District.

If I wanted to tear down my house and build a gas station or convenience store on my lot, I would not be allowed to do so (because of zoning) -- even though I might make a lot money doing so. It's a good thing that zoning protects my neighbors. Along the same lines, the Disneyland Resort, the Anaheim Convention Center, the Anaheim Garden Walk, and hotel developers who have invested within the Anaheim Resort District have every right to expect that land in the Anaheim Resort District will be used for visitor-related purposes, not for residential condominiums.

I realize that my point of view in this thread has changed. Initially, I was just clarifying the facts. Now, I'm arguing why I think Disneyland has a stronger case.

 

[SamIAm21]

Well, when this started getting mentions on DIS Unplugged, I started researching the issues between Disneyland and the ACC. I wasn't sure how I felt about the ongoing battles. I also read up on SunCal. SunCal has been doing a good job of swaying the sympathetic opinion out there. SunCal is not some philanthropic organization trying to provide homes for the poor. It's the complete opposite and that becomes pretty apparent after a little research.

However, after reading Al Lutz's column the other day, I really don't think Disney is going to have a problem cranking up their publicity machine regarding the improvements to DCA, the new off-property Disney boutique hotels there at the Garden Walk (I'm praying that is all true) and the blue sky ideas for a third gate.

I'm very excited by the plans being laid out for the DLR. I think it will once again make Disneyland a premier Disney destination and Orange Country and Anaheim will benefit from that. People who would only think to go to WDW because of the amount of things to do there might decide that Disneyland is a good option too. California Adventure will be an amazing park when John Lasseter gets done with it. It will be worthy of a visit in it's own right. It won't just be an overflow park for Disneyland anymore!

 

[raidermatt]

I had also posted a lot of info on this situation in this thread:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1542297

I agree, this is not really about Disney opposing low income housing.

But at the same time, it's not about a high-end condominium complex destroying Disney's ability to profit as a business.

The bottom line is that city councils make zoning changes all the time all over the country. Disney's case is not stronger because the current zoning wouldn't allow the complex.

Also, the land in question currently houses an RV park and is next to the freeway, across Katella Ave from DL. Not exactly doing a lot for that resort district.

Another interesting point... Anyone notice that rumors of Disney seriously looking at a third gate didn't surface until after this dispute arose? Part of the problem is that much of the resort district is being taken up by things like RV parks and parking lots because Disney has not developed the land they own like they had previously indicated to Anaheim they would.

So now the city is supposed to tell a developer who wants to build a very nice complex that will significantly improve the area "no" because Disney MIGHT eventually build a third theme park and somehow this condo complex will hamper their ability to do that?

Please.

Pete's primary point in all of this isn't the affordable housing, but how Disney looks to the public in this case and that's the primary problem for Disney. Whether this complex eventually gets built or doesn't get built, it will have ZERO impact on Disney's ability to continue on or not continue on with its expansion plans. The fact is the complex would have some units that will qualify as "affordable housing" and Disney is coming off as a bully for opposing that and for trying to take zoning changes out of the hands of the city council.

Further, there is another measure that might get on the ballot that would require Disney to get voter approval before it changed zoning on anything. And since the land it has earmarked for the third theme park is currently zoned for parking and agriculture, Disney would be forced to go to the voters if they ever actually want build that park, should the measure pass.

It's perplexing why Disney is making such a big deal out of this, given the consequences.