Disneyland Developers situation

[wdwowner]

After listening to today podcast about the DL situation, I would like to make a suggestion. This weeks MiceCast podcast is devoted to this subject completely. Please take a listen to it.

http://micecast.blogspot.com/2007/08/happiest-housing-on-earth.html

FYI, 2 of the hosts are previous DL cast members and the third is a current DL cast member. This is an adult podcast, not really safe for children, but the DL situation is discussed very throughly and from the point of view of an Anaheim City resident.

Main points. There is a master plan for the Resort district in Anaheim and the new development want to build houses in that area. Also, the low income housing that is claimed is no where near what a DL cast member can afford.

It is worth listening to.

 

[cxcelica]

I am not familiar with all the detailed goings on in this situation, but I did want to comment on something discussed on the Roundtable.

I know that Pete and some of the other roundtable might think this is making Disney really look bad, but in the long run I think it may be worth it for Disney to take the bad PR hit now for it. If Disney is able to protect, control, monopolize (whatever term you prefer) this piece of land and prevent development so that they may someday build a third theme park, than it is worth it.

In 20 years if there is a park there, I think very few people will remember what Disney did to get the land, and probably fewer would even care. From Disney's standpoint once that land is gone, its gone. So I could see how they maybe willing to look bad now, in order to help themselves in the future.

 

[dpuck1998]

I'd like to make a point here. From what I gathered in the story, disney is fighting to have the issue taken to the polls. Hopefully I heard right, but if that is the case then what is wrong with that? I think we should be voting on more things in this country instead of letting judges decide what is best for our communities.

"A spokesman for Save Our Anaheim Resort, a Disney-funded coalition of business and community leaders that organized the referendum drive -- collecting more than 14,000 signatures -- asked the council to immediately place the zoning issue on a ballot."

How can taking this to vote be a bad thing??

 

[wdwowner]

The only bad thing about this referendum is it would make all zoning changes have to be voted on by the public, leaving out the planning and zoning boards, the ones who should be making the decisions.

 

[dpuck1998]

The only bad thing about this referendum is it would make all zoning changes have to be voted on by the public, leaving out the planning and zoning boards, the ones who should be making the decisions.

Why shouldn't we vote on zoning changes??

 

[wdwowner]

This would cripple a city. Imagine every home owner who wants to put up a fence, that would be outside of a city code, would have to wait and be voted on by all of the residents. The zoning board handles tons of these request each week. That is their job and are elected to handle these issues.

Now I can see voting on big stuff, like a business district master plan, or a residential master plan. But for every little change is not feasible.

 

[dpuck1998]

This would cripple a city. Imagine every home owner who wants to put up a fence, that would be outside of a city code, would have to wait and be voted on by all of the residents. The zoning board handles tons of these request each week. That is their job and are elected to handle these issues.

Now I can see voting on big stuff, like a business district master plan, or a residential master plan. But for every little change is not feasible.

How does a fence equate to building housing? I think we can figure out a way to pick and choose what needs to be voted on vs. individual exceptions.

 

[wdwowner]

The issue is this. They are fighting over changes to Anaheim's General Plan which will change the zoning of a small parcel of land at the eastern edge of Anaheim's Resort District. The builder wants to put a residential area in the Tourist Area plan.

 

[dpuck1998]

The issue is this. They are fighting over changes to Anaheim's General Plan which will change the zoning of a small parcel of land at the eastern edge of Anaheim's Resort District. The builder wants to put a residential area in the Tourist Area plan.

Okay, so shouldn't that require a public vote?

 

[raidermatt]

Okay, so shouldn't that require a public vote?

No, it doesn't in virtually any city in the country. As wdwowner pointed out, if the elected members of the City Council can't make decisions without voter approval, what exactly is their job?

Also, Disney is not merely fighting to take the issue to the polls. They also filed a lawsuit (their first ever against the City of Anaheim), and they tried to bully a councilmember into not voting by throwing threats of "conflict of interest" at her. That last part was well-described on the MiceCast show.

Disney is trying anything they can think of to try to stop the development. That's their right of course, but as Disney well knows, perception can quickly become reality in the eyes of the public...


The MiceCast show is a good discussion of the topic if you don't want to spend a lot of time doing searches on the net for maps, plans, council meeting minutes, etc. But I looked some up anyway.


The proposed development is on the edge of the resort district with I5 behind it. It currently houses a mobile home park. Disney does not own the land and is free to build it's third park on the land they do own whenever they want to break ground. The proposed SunCal development is on the east side of Haster Street, south of Katella, if you are interested in looking it up on GoogleMaps or Mapquest.

You can find a map of the Land Use plan here: http://www.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/General Plan/LandUsePlanMap.pdf
Katella is not labeled, but S. Haster Street is. Katella is the street that intersects Haster just before the freeway. The land in question is on the east side of Haster, which is the freeway side. As you can see, it is on the edge of the current resort zone, not in the middle as some have said (not on this thread).

How "affordable" the affordable component will be is relative. It will likely have some restrictions placed on it to make it MORE affordable than the other units, but this is not going to be true low income housing. This invalidates parts of the arguments from both sides. On the one hand, this isn't going to be housing frontline CMs can afford. On the other hand, there is no risk of this development becoming any kind of blight on the landscape. Certainly it will be more appealing than the mobile home park that is there now.

That said, if it is more affordable, it does mean that frontline CMs who might be part of multi-income families would have a better chance of being able to afford a unit. Also lower-level managers and such would have a better chance.


Also, I think it was Pete that mentioned the other developments that Disney is opposing. I just want to make it clear that Disney did not object to those potential developments until the SunCal development became an issue. Disney knew of the other developments and was fine with allowing them to move forward. After they decided to oppose SunCal they reversed their position on the other two developments.


This is not a clear cut issue of affordable housing vs. Disney's ability to build a third theme park if they want. SunCal's plans will do little to solve the problem for CMs looking for local housing, and a fairly upscale condo complex next to the freeway will do nothing to hamper Disney's ability to successfully develop its land.

There's hyperbole flying from both sides.

The key at this point is that the land currently has a mobile home park on it, which nobody (except maybe the people in the mobile homes) wants to see continue. The developer has some very reasonable plans that will definitely make things better than they are today. Disney does not own the land, yet they are trying to prevent the owner from doing what they wish, even though the owner has the City's blessing.

Whether the issue actually goes to referendum or not, and whether it passes or not, Disney has made themselve look like a bully, as Pete said, in the eyes of many. That will not help them in the court of public perception, and certainly it won't help them when they seek approval to build what they want on THEIR land in the coming years.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Disney is expecting Anaheim to do what it wishes based on plans that Disney has for future development. There is no guarantee that Disney will ever put those plans into action. They had plans on the table for a third them park 7 years ago, before California Adventure ever opened. They even had a website about it. When DCA failed to meet expectations, those plans where shelved and the website was eventually nixed.

How can Anaheim reasonably tell developers "no" and allow things like mobile home parks to remain based on nothing more than plans Disney has. Plans that Disney might be 10 or 20 years from executing, IF EVER?

No, it would be better for all involved, and especially Disney, to work out some kind of true compromise.

But as Pete noted on the podcast, Disney doesn't like to negotiate reasonably.

That's too bad.

 

[raidermatt]

It seems I have managed to kill the thread, but I'm going to add this anyway.

Disney is within their rights to try to get the measure on the ballot that would require any zoning changes to be approved by the voters. However, as a result of Disney's effort, there is another potential ballot initiative that SunCal is pushing that would require Disney to get voter approval for any zoning changes on property Disney owns.

This would affect 53 acres that Disney has owned for 10 years but currently only has strawberry fields and parking on it. It is currently zoned for agriculture and parking, so if this measure passes and Disney wants to build it's third theme park, they will need to get voter approval to do it.

If both meaures get on the ballot and pass, voters would then have complete control over any new housing in the resort zone, as well as over any substantial development on Disney's property (Disney's property is a subsection of the larger resort zone).

Again, this is why it would be beneficial to all involved, and potentially to Disney most of all, to work out a compromise. This isn't Florida where Disney can do pretty much whatever it wants. They need to play well with the other kids or they might find themselves in a worse position than before.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-disney15aug15,1,6443238.story?track=rss