Wednesday, July 18, 2007

What would you do with a Billion Dollars? (Addendum)

I typically don't like to edit my posts to provide additional information because it might be missed by those people who have already read my post. 

After reading The Disney Blog and MouseExtra's posts about this news, I have to say that there is another major bit of contention that needs to be addressed if they want the expenditure of $1 Billion to make a bit of difference.

That bit of contention is the various ballot proposals that seem to be flying around Anaheim vying for the City Counsel's attention.

If I'm reading the various articles correctly, land developers want to build non-Disney housing, more specifically low-income housing, within a stone's throw of the Happiest Place on Earth.

I'm sure this housing would mostly be used by Disney Cast Members but I can see why Disney isn't happy about such requests.  They want as close to absolute control over the going's on in and around Anaheim as it will have a direct impact on their revenue stream.

The other thing that seems to be trying to capture the City Counsel's attention is that a very vocal minority of non-Disney dependant small businesses and locals are tired of the influence Disney exerts over the politics in Anaheim.  They are tired of the constant fireworks and disruptions to their life do to Disneyland being their neighbor. 

To them, I say "boo hoo, cry me a river".  That would by like complaining to the Salt Lake City Council about the influence The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has on the politics and economy of the city and more importantly the State of Utah.  It would be like complaining that the Vatican's politics are too influenced by the Catholic Church.  Or, more secularly, that Bentonville, Arkansas is too influenced by Wal-Mart and Hollywood is too influenced by the wishes and desires of the Democratic Party.

In the case of Anaheim, Salt Lake City, and The Vatican City, these towns/cities were pretty much put on the map by the entity that is providing the "influence" on politics. 

In the case of all the examples I gave, people moving into those areas should know what they are getting into.  If you don't:  A) you haven't done your research B) you live under a rock

I can probably safely say that there are very few people who call Anaheim home that were living there when it was just an orange grove.  They knew Disneyland was there.  They knew Disneyland is responsible for most of the action that goes on in that town and made it what it is today.

A couple people had the following to say on a thread started on Paul Barrie  & Patrick Hurd's Window to the Magic forum's (Anti-Disney Ballot Proposal in Anaheim)

Mouselounge said:

This is a case of the city biting the hand that feeds it.

Abovethefirehouse said:

those people that are complaining are punks. Disneyland was there before residential area was there and they need to shut up. they are the ones that moved next to Disneyland so they need to deal with it. 98% of the stuff out there is because Disneyland is there so people open a business or what ever. [Edited for spelling]

Mortis said:

I think Disney should forget doing a third park in CA and look elsewhere. Maybe Texas or mid West.

I myself commented that I wonder what will be the straw the breaks the camel's back and forces Disney to tell Anaheim to kiss off. 

But, once $1 Billion is expended, that is not likely to happen.  It would just be stupid.


So, in addition to the Customer Service problem, Disney executives really need to settle this dispute with Anaheim and it's constituents.  The last thing people want to do is come and vacation inside a political war-zone.



Unknown said...

Nice post.

Btw, the Low Income Housing thing is a red herring. For the development in question less than 15% of the housing would qualify as low income. And Low Income in SoCal has a whole 'nother meaning anyway. Trust me, the average Disneyland CM still can't afford to live there alone.

The developer is pissed because just the zoning change alone stands to triple the value of the property. The city council members are pissed because the developer won't contribute to their campaign coffers if he doesn't get this deal.


Unknown said...


I cannot remember where I read it but I swore that the rules required that the "low income" housing was extremely marked down. But even so, I can see your point. I'm sure the average CM doesn't make enough money to even afford a home that is $250-$300K

Disney Diaries said...

I like your blog. Would you consider a link trade?