Good News for Third gate bad news for land owners?

[Jspider]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

when I saw this on the news a few days ago I thought about aniheim and how it has backed massive development on the DLR before

this new law past could theoreticaly allow the government to now force homeowners into selling to Disney so that Aniheim could benifit economicaly from having yet another theme park in the area

I doubt this would happen anytime soon but as long as the ruling stays around this leaves this as an option for the resort doesn't it?

once the second gate is built out and both theme parks are seeing some large numbers it strikes me as plausable


for reference I'm talking about the land that is a bunch of houses circled in the red around the third gate land

freeing the area of houses leaves many opportunities for Disney

[Crazy Legs]

wow

[Little Star]

Yeah, I actually thought about that too when I first heard about the ruling. Disney's obviously a very large corporation, and it does seem entirely possible.

But as much as I'd love more Disneyland, I'd hate to see it happen that way.

[3rdshiftCM]

The negative PR that would come from that would kill the idea, can you say Disney's America. Last time it was just people living in hotels, I would bet there are Disney CMs living in that area. Besides, if Disney wants the land that bad they'll just spend a boat load of money and do it the semi decent way.

I don't expect a 3rd gate (unless a waterpark, Disney could try to have the only area waterpark open year round) until DCA gets a little more healthy. It would be one more reason not to go to DCA.

looking at that picture I have a question about that ground work that was to be a new non-Disney outdoor mall entertainment complex, Gardenwalk I think, I never heard what happen to it. I just figured they ran out of money, anyone know?

[Jspider]

Originally Posted by 3rdshiftCM

The negative PR that would come from that would kill the idea, can you say Disney's America. Last time it was just people living in hotels, I would bet there are Disney CMs living in that area. Besides, if Disney wants the land that bad they'll just spend a boat load of money and do it the semi decent way.

I don't expect a 3rd gate (unless a waterpark, Disney could try to have the only area waterpark open year round) until DCA gets a little more healthy. It would be one more reason not to go to DCA.

looking at that picture I have a question about that ground work that was to be a new non-Disney outdoor mall entertainment complex, Gardenwalk I think, I never heard what happen to it. I just figured they ran out of money, anyone know?

yeah I thought about negative PR too

I think it all depends on what kind of attendance the resort is looking at in the future

this would be very plausible if attendance becomes less dependant on Southern Californian people and more dependant on west coasters and people visiting from southern america/mexico and Japan of course

I myself do expect a third gate unless Disney wants to try a giant indoor waterpark, California isn't florida the weather never becomes too hot and the winters are a bit cool for swimming, Disney could probably accomplish the same goals if they just enhanced themed pools and increased hotel ownership in the area instead of building a water park. A third gate would really push the resort status.

from what I hear Garden Walk has run low on funds but they are still pushing it and it may open in 2007? basicaly around the same time that Disney opens up new stores with their DTD expansion which is being planned (so I hear from sources)

it's probably easy to guess that Disney is expanding DTD to limit Garden Walk's success

after all Disney wanted to use that land as a parking lot too (I had it zoned as such when I did my third gate land and I later discovered Disney did the same thing with their origional plans)

[Tom Chaney]

It's my opinion that a 3rd gate isn't going to happen anytime soon. Disneyland still requires additional expensive rehab, DCA obviously requires a lot of expensive corrections. It would be fiscal suicide to attempt a 3rd gate until your first two gates are totally on their feet.

As for the eminent domain ruling: I expect to see a lot of movement among the several states to pass state-level laws to deal with this.

[GeneralShang]

That Gardenwalk thing has said that it would be open for about 3 years now!! HAHA! They have a new date on the wall again.. I think 2006. or 2007 or something.

Wonder if it'll actually happen.

[Jspider]

I didn't say that the 3rd gate would start right away only that I wouldn't be suprised for Anihiem to one day in the future utilize the power that this new law provides

Disney will probably do it's best by buying up hotels and maybe a house or two through normal means

it should be noted that it's close to impossible for Disney to actualy buy up a entire residential block like that though there'd be people that would fight against it and hold out forever

Disney might just buy up 25-50% of the neighborhood at which point they'd just ask Anihiem to step in and utlize the power of this ruling to claim the rest

lets not forget that the city paid for Disney's giant parking structure (second largest on earth I hear) as well as major highway and transportation reconstruction costs

Originally Posted by GeneralShang

That Gardenwalk thing has said that it would be open for about 3 years now!! HAHA! They have a new date on the wall again.. I think 2006. or 2007 or something.

Wonder if it'll actually happen.

yeah that's what I just said

Disney has a DTD expansion planned for the same timeframe so I'm betting Disney is really putting gardenwalk in a spot (as Disney probably still wants the property for resort expansion

[Disneylandrocks55]

Originally Posted by Jspider

it should be noted that it's close to impossible for Disney to actualy buy up a entire residential block like that though there'd be people that would fight against it and hold out forever

If you look closely at the houses (in the red box) I don't think it is traditional residential housing. It looks more like a gated community, or condos. For one, the buildings look identical, they all have the same color roofs, (grey and red) And there is no streets separating the houses. (with a few exepctions). And plus there is a pool, that looks like it is used by all the houses. So maybe instead of Disney having to buy each home individually, they can just go to the land lord and buy the entire plot of land.

[chause2000]

The thing that people forget is that eminent domain has been around forever. One little technicality in the law, that wasnt their in the first place, was could the government take private land and give it to a "corporation". The law never addressed this. Being in law school we just covered this and now, because of this supreme court ruling, will be on it for awhile. Disney has always had the power to grab that land, if they wanted. The government has always had the power to seize land if it "benefits" the rest of the city. Therefore the government could take the land and sell it to disney. (i.e. public works projects, etc.) When i mean seize i mean buy the land at a fair market price. So i hardly think the people whom that land belongs to will be screwed when you look at real estate in that area. I myself am suprised that disney hasnt made a move earlier, even before this ruling, because they have always had the power of persuasion in their court. Someone who thinks that disney wouldnt be able to convince an anaheim board of directors that getting them that land would benefit the city is a fool. They have always had the power to get that land but have never taken the leap for one reason, like many people have said, the bad PR. So this ruling really isnt a new thing, it just clears up a vague law that never addressed this situation.

[Jspider]

Originally Posted by Disneylandrocks55

If you look closely at the houses (in the red box) I don't think it is traditional residential housing. It looks more like a gated community, or condos. For one, the buildings look identical, they all have the same color roofs, (grey and red) And there is no streets separating the houses. (with a few exepctions). And plus there is a pool, that looks like it is used by all the houses. So maybe instead of Disney having to buy each home individually, they can just go to the land lord and buy the entire plot of land.

that would be good if it's true

I didn't notice the pools and I'm not exactly able to drive to those locations at any time

however just because the roofs are all looking the same doesn't prove too much there are plenty of places I've seen that seem like the houses are all relative clones of each other

[Athlonacon]

This new use of eminent domain sets a pretty scary precedent. I can honestly see using eminent domain if a new highway runs right through a few people's homes, but this is ridiculous. Forcing people out of their homes for private corporations to build their stuff is wrong. You can't just pay someone what their house is worth and assume everything will be okay. Some of those people might have lived in a house all their lives, grown up in those houses or have some extreme amount of sentimental value invested in it. Can you honestly put a price tag on the house you have become attached to for years.

Not to mention the hassle of packing up, finding a new home and going through the hassle of refinancing and all that stuff. We are not talking about nomads here, we are talking about families that are comfortable where they're at and many of them probably have a huge attachment to their house. To ask them to just leave, whether they are getting a fair price or not, is a very unfair thing to do. I think for the government to act in this manner is a gross abuse of power and it puts corporate lobbyists ahead of working Americans who are caught in the middle of it.

I don't think Disney will add a 3rd gate, especially using eminent domain in this way. I think both Jay Rasulo and Matt Ouimett have acknowledged the failure of DCA and not only won't make the same mistake twice, but will work to fix the original before going any further. Personally, I think Disney should accept that Disneyland is landlocked and concentrate more on working with what they have (i.e. improving Disneyland) rather than worry about being able to charge another $56 with a new gate. Can you imagine what Disneyland would look like today if the money for DCA was spent improving Disneyland? If they had sunk all that DCA money into a New Tomorrowland, Disneyland would be the crown jewel of the Disney parks again. Oh Matt Ouimet, where were you 8 years ago? I guess we should count ourselves fortunate to have him at all.

[uvsc_wolverine]

Welcome to the United American Socialist Republic.

Don't get me wrong here. I am an extremely patriotic individual, but this latest ruling by the supreme court is downright scary. If the local government can show ANY economic gain from allowing company X to build on your land then they can take your home. This is just wrong.

Canada's starting to look pretty good right now.

[nsxdrift_89]

Agreed.
Eminent Domain, is a good idea, if it benefits the Greater Good of the Community. I don't think taking away 50 + homes in a bad area, to build a Costco, or other business concerned with economic gain. Eminent Domain is only good if it is used to benefit all of, that wouldbe a Police Station, Fire Station, Air Base, etc. It shouldn't be used so that the city can earn money from tax revenues. WARNING: The following statement may offend some people. This is just another Quick-Fix proposed by the Liberals across America, to skirt around the more important issue. Every state in the union is broke. Boke, we have no money, and the unions (nurses, teachers, police, fire, county and state workers {this statement is not ment to offend any of the above mentioned positions, these people do a wonderful service for all of us, but your unions are just keeping bad employees, and taking all of the states money.}

This may sound drastic, but it is time to call for an end to unions. With all the federal laws, protecting workers, there is no use for them, except for protecting bad workers.

I truly hope i did not offend anybody, by these statements. They are ment to inform and enducate, not offend.

However, if Disney wants that land, they will pay the people for their land. The company may be heartless, to a certain extent, but they will not take these people's homes away, not even Eisner would concoct something that evil.

Thanks for reading

[Athlonacon]

Hmmm, politics is one of the 3 social taboos. For those curious: religion and sex round out the other two. Anyway, I wouldn't be too concerned about offending anyone with a provocative statement. It's your God-given right protected by the Bill of Rights to speak your mind. If someone is offended by a statement, that's their problem, not the person's who made the statement. Another scary trend I am seeing in this country is people afraid to speak their mind on account of offending someone. Please understand, this is not directed at anyone on MiceChat per se, it's just a general trend I've noticed lately. We've become so accustomed to being politically correct that every controversial statement has to come with a disclaimer.

For an *excellent* speech on the matter, I recommend this one:
http://www.conservativenews.org/cult...19990316a.html

This is Charlton Heston's speech to Harvard students in 1999 and it will really get you thinking about the PC situation in this country.