This is strictly my own opinion, but having a special needs child does not make you a special needs family whose rights prevail over other families. Yes, there are areas that are difficult to navigate and yes, some things just can't be done easily, well, or at all if you have certain disabilities. Accommodations should absolutely be given, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world owes you accommodations that supersede the rights of everyone else in a way that impedes a harmonious flow of things. Please note that I say '
supersede' the rights of others, as in no one's rights should be greater than another's if the overall effect is negative. It becomes sticky, and I readily acknowledge that. You can't simply make everything equal. But if the accommodations allowed have a pronounced negative effect on most park-goers, then what you have is not an accommodation but a system that is inherently unfair to the majority and fosters resentment. I feel Disney has done a pretty good job of recognizing and assisting with special needs families. I also feel those families should, in turn, recognize that their accommodations are not designed to level the playing field but to give them the best accessibility to Disney that Disney can provide without taking away the special experiences for other families. In light of that, I see Keenz and such as areas that might overstep the rights of one community on the majority.
I also thought I'd add that I myself have a special needs child (who is actually no longer a child, but 18). Most of my family has worked with special needs children and adults, as have I. My viewpoint is as a person who believes we can all give a little when it comes to addressing all needs. We also managed just fine without a Keenz. Would that have made things easier? Maybe, but so would lowering the noise level, reducing the visual stimulation, providing personal bathrooms without automatic flushers, limiting characters in costume, removing fireworks, etc. But then you would no longer have
Disneyland.