Disney sues to prevent Anaheim from adding low-cost housing near its resort

[entanglement]

From the Guardian:

ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) - The Walt Disney Co. is suing the city of Anaheim over a controversial residential project that would add low-cost housing in the city's resort district.

Disney has long opposed the proposal to build 1,500 condominiums and apartments, including 225 units for lower income residents, near its amusement parks. The entertainment company says residents would be out of place in a district designed for tourists.

``This lawsuit speaks to how important we view this Anaheim resort area and that we make sure the vision sticks,'' said Disneyland spokesman Rob Doughty...

More here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6444246,00.html

[Deep13]

1. Or we could condemn Disneyworld and house the homeless...

...at the Magic Kingdom.

Just for clarification: condemn here means emminent domain.

[crikkett]

6. Anaheim is an armpit

sorry to anyone who lives there. I'm talking about the area right around the park.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. Anaheim is just the hair, Garden Grove is the armpit!

[shanti]

we used to call it

garbage grove.

[Megahurtz]

27. Rofl You Got THAT Right!

:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

10. I agree. I used to live in California and I don't recall Disneyland in such a

ritzy area.

[EFerrari]

32. No. There's poverty all around it. n/t

[shanti]

19. exactly

it's a fact. i hate to say it, but my ex lives in the direct vicinity. central oc is falling apart.

[jaksavage]

2. Keep them Poe folks out

We have a completely contrived image to defend. Not like we would employ any of them either.

[Journeyman]

3. Why would anyone want to live near the Parks? . . .

Traffic is a nightmare all the time, there's little in the way of businesses and services nearby that aren't tourist-centric, and every night it's like a war zone when the Parks set off their fireworks displays. Besides, there are so many hookers and dealers in the area it's hardly a place to raise a family.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. That is the whole point

If property values were good in the area, they would be building middle or upper class residences. But because of the noise and traffic, the area has little value. Because Anaheim, like many southern California cities, does not have room to expand, low income housing gets put in the low value areas.

[Journeyman]

50. So let's not force them in against Disney's wishes. . .

Let Disney keep its "pristine" neighborhood and use the effort instead to get Disney to agree to fund housing in a different neighborhood.

And no one wants to build middle or upper class residences around the Parks for all the reasons I stated they'd make a miserable place for low-income housing -- it's not a nice area to live, what with all the tourists and entertainment venues in the area, to say nothing of the noise and confusion.

[EFerrari]

22. Because any roof is desperately needed by some people?

[Journeyman]

51. Yes, quite true. . .

so why spend the effort trying to force Disney to do what it objects to, when the same labor could be put to better use trying to get Disney to help pay for housing in another part of the town?

[EFerrari]

55. Well, while at first glance that seems like a creative solution,

the deep logic is that poor people are an eyesore. That is dehumanizing and only perpetuates our failed policies in dealing with poverty.

I'm all for doing what works but if you look at the longer term, hiding poverty doesn't work.

Does that make sense?

[Tsiyu]

52. Thank you

(NIMB is alive and well in the good Ole USA)

Why does Disney hate poor children?

[EFerrari]

56. Yeah -- so much for Cinderalla.

What scum these people are.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. yeah... because it is such a nice area

I would imagine most of this housing would be of higher quality than what is already nearby.

[ThomCat]

5. What right does Disney have to interfere in municipal decisions?

Fuck 'em! Disney should STFU! x(

[crikkett]

7. Their taxes probably make up a huge proportion of the city's income

...taxes...

[ThomCat]

So what?

Corporations already get tax breaks, zoning concessions, streets built where they need them and municipal services to order. It's time corporations had a little less power over municipal governments.

[AngryOldDem]

46. I agree, but it ain't gonna happen

There is a huge GM plant in my town that gets tax abatements, etc. out the ass. The revenue that the area is losing from literally giving this plant a free ride taxwise could fund the schools, municipal services, etc., for years. But keeping the plant here is of more importance than the tax revenue. The threat is always there that if these abatements weren't given, the plant would close. (Blackmail, in other words.) Guess what? In probably another decade or so the plant will be closed anyway. It's already been scaled back tremendously.

Cities are so concerned about keeping (often dying) industries that they will kill themselves revenuewise to do so. Makes no sense.

[crikkett]

54. Money talks baby, and bullshit walks.

sometimes it comes down to what the city can afford to be without.

[entanglement]

25. I agree

n/t

[Hepburn]

11. Ummmmmm.....

...I live close enough to Anaheim to know what is around Disneyland...a bunch of motels, fast food restaurants, coffee shops...like low-cost housing is gonna make a difference?

Ummm...hardly!

[Howardx]

14. who do they think goes to disneyland?

im betting its not your high roller types. bastards.

[mikelgb]

35. have you seen the ticket prices?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

48. That's what credit cards are for! ;-) (n/t)

[freeplessinseattle]

49. um, some people are maxed paying bills and xmas gifts

or maybe some have bad credit. It's not so easy for some of us.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

63. Next time I'll use the sarcasm icon.

I think it's insane what Disney is charging, and what people are paying (whether cash or credit...).

[SoCalDem]

12. Can't have all those poor kids trying to "crash the gates"

Goodness knows they would not have the cash to pay their way in..

Know what it costs to get in these days??

What You Need to Know About Disneyland Tickets

* Children under 3 get in free, and anyone ten years old or older pays adult admission for Disneyland tickets.

* The lowest-priced, one-day Disneyland tickets are good for only one park. In other words, you can't visit Disneyland in the morning and Disney's California Adventure in the afternoon of the same day.

* Multi-day Disneyland tickets and one-day Hoppers allow you to visit both parks on the same day. The multi-day Disneyland tickets expire 13 days after the first use.

* Lost tickets cannot be replaced, even if you have a copy of them.

Disneyland Tickets - Prices
List prices for Disneyland tickets listed below are valid as of January 2, 2007, according to the Disneyland web site.

* One Day
o Admission to one park only
o These Disneyland tickets are available at the resort ticket booth or by calling [phone]. Not available online.
o Children $53.00, Adults $63.00
* One Day Park Hopper
o You can visit both parks on the same day.
o Children $73.00, Adults $83.00
o No discount, but you can order in advance online direct from Disney
* Two Day Park Hopper
o You can visit both parks on the same day.
o Children $102.00, Adults $122.00
o No discount, but you can order in advance online
* Three Day Park Hopper
o You can visit both parks on the same day.
o Children $149.00, Adults $179.00 at the gate
o Children $129.00, Adults $159.00 plus shipping in advance online
o Includes one early entry admission available several days a week
* Four Day Park Hopper
o You can visit both parks on the same day.
o Children $179.00, Adults $209.00 at the gate
o Children $149.00, Adults $179.00 plus shipping in advance online
o Includes one early entry admission available several days a week
* Five Day Park Hopper
o You can visit both parks on the same day.
o Children $199.00, Adults $229.00 at the gate
o Children $159.00, Adults $209.00 plus shipping in advance online
o Includes one early entry admission available several days a week

Annual Passports
Prices are the same for adults and children over age three. Children under three get in free.

* Premium Annual Passport (Both parks, $359)
o Good 365 days a year
o Free parking
* Deluxe Annual Passport (Both parks, $239)
o Good 315 days a year, with 50 pre-defined "blackout" days that include Saturdays mid-March through mid-August, along with some holidays and the last week of December.
o Parking is $59 extra
o Stroller rental $49 extra
o Parking and stroller $108 extra
* Southern California Annual Passport (Both parks, $154)
o Available to residents of zip codes 90000 to 93599
o Good 220 days a year, with pre-defined "blackout" days that include all Saturdays, all of July, much of June and August and most school break and holiday periods
o Parking is $59 extra
o Stroller rental $49 extra
o Parking and stroller $108 extra
* Southern California Select Annual Passport (Both parks, $124)
o Available to residents of zip codes 90000 to 93599
o Good 175 days a year, with pre-defined "blackout" days that include all Saturdays and Sundays, all of July, much of June and August and most school break and holiday periods
o Parking is $59 extra
o Stroller rental $49 extra
o Parking and stroller $108 extra
* Other Specials for Southern California Residents (who live in zip codes 90000 to 93599)
o January 3 through April 26, 2007, everyone gets in for the kids' price

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. That is why Disneyland moved from ride tickets to admissions

Ever wonder where the Californiaism "E Ticket" came from?

When the area around Disneyland became the hickish area it is today the locals were always swarming the place, such as the people walt disney didn't want in his park. So they switched to the system they have today. Before then you bought books of tickets for individual rides.

That being said... me and my gf have the SoCal Annual Passport, it is a really good deal.

[EFerrari]

23. You really want to support these assholes?

:shrug:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

26. yeah

I love that freeze-dried, deep-fried Americana shit.

[EFerrari]

28. I do, too. But as someone who went from being a PhD candidate

at Cal to being functionally homeless for a while because we couldn't get medical care for my husband, I ask you to think about what you're supporting.

Because both the housing situation and the health care situation in this state are fucking stupid.

It costs us more to do this than to do better. It's nuts, like so much in BushWorld. Fwiw.

/oops -- grammar

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. nothing is perfect,

I could easily defend supporting Disney for their progressive attitudes towards same-sex issues,

It would be pretty difficult to live your life anywhere on earth if you limit your interactions to those people and organizations with whom you are ideologically or otherwise sympathetic.

[EFerrari]

36. True, but if you consider, for example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs,

standing in the way of affordable housing has significant consequences for everyone, right on up the line.

This isn't about ideology, this issue is about the welfare of the community at large. Or, in other words, fucking common sense. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. It's a land development dispute.

Disney wanted to put in a hotel, some other greedy land developer wanted to put in high density condos.

I really don't think this is Disney trying to wage a war against poor people.

[EFerrari]

40. I come from a long line of developers. Indirectly

we always wage war against poor people because the best deal always has seemed to trump community smarts.

Mixed housing tends to work. There's this great development here on Treasure Island where there used to be an old Navy base. There's housing for yuppies and housing for low income folks. It's working. :shrug:

What gets to me is, we don't have a plan. Hell, we don't have a clue, let alone a plan.

[Retrograde]

57. $63!?

That's $242 for the canonical family of four, assuming the kids are under 10. Throw in the costs of getting there, parking, food, souvenirs and we're talking real money.

[SoCalDem]

61. Disgusting, isn't it?

They run all those commercials to get kids all excited, and then Mom & Dad freak out when they end up spending a brazillion dollars to take them there..

A family of four could easily spend $500 for a day at Disneyland.. gotta eat, and a lot of the "games" there (the arcades) are a la carte..

[Initech]

13. Yeah, God forbid Disney actually helps people...

:eyes:

:banghead:

[EFerrari]

33. I can't believe these (warning: graphic language) f#ckheads

They'd rather have homeless people ringing their damn parking lot?

What does it take?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. I was there last summer.

They've really improved the area over the last few decades. But off the major roads there are still plenty of small homes very close to the park. Don't know what the deal is.

[Vinca]

16. I didn't realize the people who dress up like Mickey and Donald

got paid so well they wouldn't be interested in affordable condos close to the job. (Anaheim could dub it Poverty Land and it would fit right in.)

[shanti]

18. that is STUPID

as well they should know, the area around disneyland is not exactly luxurious anyway. LOTS of apartment ghettos, especially on the katella side of d-land.

[EFerrari]

20. So, Disney supports homelessness? Fuck you, Disney.

:kick:

[entanglement]

29. I hope the city of Anaheim sticks to its guns and tells Disney to take a hike

n/t

[EFerrari]

30. Maybe we should do a sit in at the Castle.

lol

Really, laughing is the only coping mechanism I can muster sometimes. :shrug:

[madrchsod]

21. ohhh the great unwashed and there dirty kids

why that`s not very family friendly bobby..the only thing they are good for is to clean your shitty overpriced attraction

[Canuckistanian]

24. And we can't have "unsticky visions", now, can we?

Gawd almighty, these corporate nabobs make me sick with their class bigotry.

[EFerrari]

31. Please remember to rec, folks. What a snapshot of BushWorld this is.

:(

[Gormy Cuss]

37. The linked article suggests that Disney is opposing the entire development

The affordable housing portion is relatively modest so I went looking for other news coverage.
This story from the OC register a few months ago adds good detail. The affordable units are in part intended to replace existing mobile home units. That fact makes the mouse look pretty sleazy.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1326330.php

Also note that the affordable housing is NOT geared to very low income people. The pricing suggests that it's targeted to those earning somewhat less than the median wage but not just very low income households. The condos developed under this project will retail for around $300,000, a bargain for the area but still requiring a good income to buy.

[Touchdown]

64. $300,000 isn't very "affordable"

Those prices may be within markets for Anaheim, but all these posts talking about Disney hating the homeless are ridiculous. What homeless person can afford a $300,000 condo?:eyes:

Don't know whether or not Disney has a point, or their just trying to land grab, but the definition of a $300,000 condo as "affordable" needs to be seriously re-evaluated.

[Gormy Cuss]

65. 'Affordable housing' is a defined term with a specific meaning.

It means that a low-income or moderate income household pays no more than 30% of its income for housing.
Low income is generally defined at less than 80% of the area median income, and moderate income at up to 120% of the area median. So, if the median household income in Anaheim is $60,000, then to be affordable then those with incomes up to about $72,000 must be able to qualify. A $300,000 condo, with 20% down, would be affordable to a houseshold in that range with current interest rates.

The housing is not targeted at the homeless, but at working renters. If these renters move into home ownership, their units are available to new renters and in that regard it may present more opportunities for the homeless to be housed because there are more available rentals. If instead the development does not include an affordable housing set-aside, the low to moderate income renters would not be able to afford the new housing (the article states $600,000 as a market rate price) and they will remain in the rental housing.

[Fresh_Start]

38. If disney doesn't want its guest to see poor people

why don't they refuse to sell tickets to poor people. After all, isn't it worse to see poor people inside the park than outside the park?

I'd imagine the low income housing proposal is likely family income upto 25-30K. They should refuse to sell entrance to anyone who can't prove higher income than that.

Aren't they being hypocritical otherwise?

[EFerrari]

41. They did when they went to an admission price over buying tickets

to ride.

There are a lot of poor black people in that area. They surely can't want more. :sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Oh, c'mon.

Are you really suggesting that racism and classism motivated Disney to switch to an entrance fee system?

There was a thread awhile back about how their "Fast Pass" system was some kind of conspiracy.

[EFerrari]

44. Who. me?! No, I would never suggest such a thing.

:)

[Touchdown]

59. Wrong. They changed to that in the 70s.

Taft (King's Island/Dominion), Marriot(Great America Il and Ca) and Six Flags (Ga & Mo. Tx was built in the 60s) opened theme parks across the country in the early 70s, among other companies. They all had pay one price. Disney Folloowed suit when that proved to be a popular way of admission. DL always charged an extra fee (smaller than POP) for admission, and buying a ticket book was also required.

There's no conspiracy of keeping poor black people out of the park because of admission prices.:eyes:

[EFerrari]

60. How is that wrong?

That they've been doing it for 30+ years?

And do you drag the word "conspiracy" into arguments you can't mount?

In the development business, we call that change in admissions practice redlining. Look it up.

[Touchdown]

62. That it was more popular with the guests

...and not to keep black people out of Disneyland. You might call it "redlining", but you are in the development business, not the hospitality business, which is what Disney is in. Look that up.

[EFerrari]

66. When you set the terms out of the reach of a demographic

you are redlining.

[Touchdown]

67. $15 in 1977 is out of reach?

It was $25 in 1994. $50 3 years ago. Seems they got greedy after Eisner took over, as opposed to all of their history.

[EFerrari]

68. As newly weds, we had to save up all week from our

minimum wage jobs to buy my husband a pint on Saturday night. (And, good thing that I wasn't a beer drinker. lol)

$15 is a lot if you don't have it.

peace, Touchdown.

[Touchdown]

69. My mom was a hairdresser and took me there

...numerous times (except one, when I came down with the measles, that might have been Knott's Berry Farm though, which also had pay one price). She was a single mother. I remember Grandpa paying for me, him, and 3 of my cousins with a $50 bill sometime around Bicentennial'76.

You want to talk red lining? Talk concert tickets. In 1991, I saw David Bowie, front row for $25. 2 years ago, I said Hell No! to U2 and their $140 tickets. Tina Turner? $180. Madonna? I'm sure she's over $200 now. Who started that gouge escallation? The Eagles, when they got back together a decade ago.

You too. Peace.

[EFerrari]

70. Boy, is that right. When did you need to be rich to buy a concert ticket!

I saw Steve Stills at Maple's Pavillion (sometime last century) and it didn't cost my rent!

You're so right about that.

[LibDemAlways]

53. Disney "guests" see plenty of poor people - they're called

"cast members" otherwise known as Disney employees, who are paid piss poor wages and take it out on parkgoers in the form of indifferent, surly, or even hostile service. A trip to Disneyland these days is not fun - from the remote, football field length parking structure for which you pay $11.00 for the privilege to the vastly inflated admission fees, to the overpriced fast food and junky souvenirs to the huge crowds - partly because of people desperately trying to get their money's worth out of "annual passes" -.....it's become a grind and an object lesson in what happens when an immensely greedy corporation runs amok.

Urban renewal, including low cost housing, would be a damn better sight than the tacky motels and crappy food joints that ring the place now...and it would give some of those low wage earners a chance, perhaps, to live closer to work.

[NotGivingUp]

42. don't they want cheap housing for their slaves?

[XOKCowboy]

47. That was my thought also.. Their low payed employees..

might benefit by living close to their employer. Then again those employees are mostly out of sight at the park so they must want them out of sight OF the park.

[AngryOldDem]

45. One more reason among many to hate Disney

Its resorts will never see a penny of my money.

God forbid that real life trample on their empire.

[Vidar]

58. Good to see the mouse showing its true fascist colors.

[Raine]

71. Well gee who wants to have to

go thru some poor depressed housing development on your way to a fun packed day at Disneyland. :sarcasm: