Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 153
  1. #91

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,886
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    I don't mean to make a Federal Case out of it, but the following Congressional Inquiry has been established...

    http://www.micechat.com/forums/showt...nds-79390.html

    Hearings will be forthcoming.

  2. #92

    • Hillary scares me.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    244

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by localdisnyfan View Post
    This sounds more familiar to me. I don't remember reading about Anaheim having to shell out all of this money. Even if Anaheim DID contribute, I highly doubt BILLIONS were spent. And if it was on street widening and landscaping, I would see that as a benefit for the city, not the DLR per se. Perhaps Mr. Liver could give us a few links to give us some background on the "billions" spent by Anaheim.

    That's because billions weren't spend. According to the New York Times, the city issued $510 million in bonds. Disney guaranteed the bond repayments with its corporate bond rating, enabling the city to repay the bonds at a lower interest rate than otherwise been possible. To pay off the bonds, the city raised its hotel tax rate from 12 percent to 15 percent.

    So Anaheim paid, but Disney guaranteed that the bonds would be repaid should the hotel tax fall short.


    Source:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2

  3. #93

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,206

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    The Anaheim government must be purely heartless and evil.

  4. #94

    • Special Agent
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,294

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by localdisnyfan View Post
    Perhaps Mr. Liver could give us a few links to give us some background on the "billions" spent by Anaheim.
    It was millions not billions. That I will admit to making the mistake on.

    But more was spent by the City and the State to build the resort District, than Disney spent on DCA. That I will maintain as true.

    The 2% hotel tax didn't go into affect until 2001. What happened in 2001 that affected hotel occupancy I wonder...

  5. #95

    • Darkbeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Tustin
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    How much did the "City of Anaheim" spend, as I understand it, NOTHING! It was all based on return of tax revenues, basically the Hotel Tax stuff. Disney got what it wanted, and the City of Anaheim got its much expanded Convention Center.

    A very good deal for the city, and the new expanded Convention Center has made the city a lot of money, and name recognition. It is now the largest Convention Center on the West Coast.
    Check out my Theme Park Photos at http://darkbeer.smugmug.com

  6. #96

    • Koubu Pilot
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Mesa, Az
    Posts
    1,498

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by garbear View Post
    How about we just move Disneyland and all the hotels around it to Nor-Cal?
    And then Anaheim can see how it is without Disneyland!
    They're more than welcome to come to the Phoenix area! Imagineering can come with and set up in Glendale so they can still work in a Glendale. How about Team Disney Scottsdale?

  7. #97

    • Silent Lucidity
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    PNW Coast Town
    Posts
    1,669

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Yes Disney is a business; yes Disney has shareholders; yes Disney seeks a profit. Just another capitalistic corporation generating tax revenue.

    Yes the City of Anaheim feeds on tax dollars; yes the City of Anaheim has politicians who seek even more tax dollars; yes the City of Anaheim's "political class" spends tax dollars to solicit votes to remain "elected". Just another bureaucracy consuming tax revenue.

    I find it hard to believe that the City of Anaheim would be better off without Disneyland! Does anyone know what the resort pays in property taxes annually?

  8. #98

    • Darkbeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Tustin
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by disneyhound View Post
    Yes Disney is a business; yes Disney has shareholders; yes Disney seeks a profit. Just another capitalistic corporation generating tax revenue.

    Yes the City of Anaheim feeds on tax dollars; yes the City of Anaheim has politicians who seek even more tax dollars; yes the City of Anaheim's "political class" spends tax dollars to solicit votes to remain "elected". Just another bureaucracy consuming tax revenue.

    I find it hard to believe that the City of Anaheim would be better off without Disneyland! Does anyone know what the resort pays in property taxes annually?
    http://www.soaranaheim.com/anaheim.php


    The $107 million in revenues that the Anaheim Resort Area generated for the City of Anaheim General Fund in FY 2006 is equivalent to 54 percent of the City’s $197 million total tax revenues received from all sources city-wide, according to a study by CBRE Consulting.

    Assuming sufficient land is available for tourist serving uses within the ARA, by 2020, the Resort Area is expected to generate more than $186 million ($128 million in constant 2006 dollars) in revenues for the City, based on average growth in attendance of 2.2 percent per year, a 15 percent growth in new hotel rooms and a 2.5 percent inflation factor.
    Check out my Theme Park Photos at http://darkbeer.smugmug.com

  9. #99

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkbeer View Post
    Having read the other thread as well I am curious what the projected tax revenue for DCA was when they did the initial planning and building of the resort district. In other words HOW MUCH WAS LOST when DCA bombed?

    I do see Mr. L's argument that Anaheim is basically waiting for Disney to either s**t or get off the pot. If Disney does build that proposed 3rd gate then the condos accross the street would be rather attractive property.

    I also thought about the "someone would be crazy to buy this here" comment and I remember the same comment about Harbor and buying a business on it prior to the redevelopment.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  10. #100

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Villa Park, CA
    Posts
    919

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    It was millions not billions. That I will admit to making the mistake on.

    But more was spent by the City and the State to build the resort District, than Disney spent on DCA. That I will maintain as true.
    If you are including the State of California in the investment made in the "Resort District", then you are referring to the widening and improvements made by CalTrans to Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) and its associated on/off ramps and access routes. Those improvements and widening would have happened through the Anaheim area regardless of whether there was a theme park on the corner of Harbor and Katella or if there was only a taco stand and a Jiffy Lube there. Only the big 50 Million dollar flyover across Ball Road would have been deleted from the project, as even the best taco stand in California wouldn't warrant that type of offramp.

    CalTrans, funded and prodded by OCTA's Measure M tax dollars, has been on a multi-decade systematic plan to widen and improve I-5 from the LA County line to San Clemente. The project has been moving from south OC northward for almost 20 years, and they had already done a great deal of work on I-5 through mid and south Orange County by the mid 1990's. Knowing that Disneyland Resort was expanding at the turn of the century, Anaheim partnered with OCTA to ensure that the next segment would be I-5 from the 91 Freeway south past Disneyland to the Orange Crush interchange. That work would have happened regardless, but the timing worked out nicely so that it was completed in conjunction with the surface street work being completed adjacent to the freeway in preparation for the "Resort District" debut in 2000.

    The I-5 improvement plan has now moved north of Disneyland, and OCTA and CalTrans are finishing the work from the 91 north to the Los Angeles County Line. Los Angeles, being Los Angeles, is hopelessly behind the curve and has only now begun to contemplate continuing the I-5 work north into LA County. LA would rather spend hundreds of millions of tax dollars on subways that a tiny percentage of the population uses. But Orange County wisely spent their tax dollars on widening freeways that nearly everyone uses, speeding up traffic, reducing pollution, and increasing the ability of the taxpayers to enjoy the pleasures of life like going to Disneyland instead of sitting on clogged 1950's era freeways.

    The investment by the State of California, AKA CalTrans, in the Anaheim Resort District via freeway improvement would have happened regardless of whether Disneyland was there or not. But the ultimate construction timeline may have shifted by a few years without the 15+ Million people annually heading to Disneyland and using the Resort District offramps.
    Last edited by TP2000; 10-02-2007 at 08:41 PM.

  11. #101

    • "I Break Things"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    12,370

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by TP2000 View Post
    The investment by the State of California, AKA CalTrans, in the Anaheim Resort District via freeway improvement would have happened regardless of whether Disneyland was there or not. But the ultimate construction timeline may have shifted by a few years without the 15+ Million people annually heading to Disneyland and using the Resort District offramps.
    I am going to do some basic math here. Disneyland helped make Anaheim a tourist destination. Tourists transportation utilizes our freeway system. Disneyland has an extensive employee base. Some of that employee base utilizes the freeway system. The convention center and hotels of the resort district have extensive employee bases. Some of them utilize the freeway system on a daily basis as well. I am going to go out on a limb here and state that without Disneyland and the Resort District the freeway system would not be as crowded in that specific area. Eventually they would need to expand the freeway due to increased overall population, but when you count the local tourist traffic and workforce that need becomes a much more current reality. I think the timeline was adjusted more then "a few years" because of the popularity of Disneyland.

    I also think the city is forcing Disney's hand. The "you really want this plot then commit to it and SHOW US what you're going to do instead of the someday approach." At any rate Anaheim is becoming a very wealthy town, and the thought of more offices, executives, and luxury condos does make sense. Look at Garden Walk... I know plenty of individuals who said "who'd want that lot" and now it's becoming a luxury mall! As the resort district continues to grow and expand the properties around it will begin to rise in value. I don't like SunCal but I really don't think that just because they walk away someone else won't take their place.
    Last edited by techskip; 10-02-2007 at 09:19 PM.
    "Happiness is a Low Water Level"


    "Creating magical memories and making Managers cry since 1955!"


  12. #102

    • Vegetarian Disneylander
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
    Posts
    2,309

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Much has been said in this thread, to which I am admittedly arriving quite late, about the pros and cons of Disney's involvement in the area and the perceptions on both sides on what that involvement has meant and what it will mean for the future. Disney has undoubtedly boosted the local tourism in the area, as there certainly wouldn't be as many 'Good Neighbour' hotels as there are without the existence of the world's most famous theme park.

    However, Disney - as has been said here many times - is a major multinational corporation. For too long, there has been a trend towards letting large corporations bully local and state laws out of the way in the name of "free trade". This isn't something that is isolated to county and state by-laws in the US, but exists in global trade as well. Backroom agreements like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) - and the subsequent and more subtle versions that have come out in the wake of its leak and exposure to the indie media world - would make it possible for corporations like Disney to override local trade; labour; environmental and other laws in the name of "free trade". This is not alarmist nonsense, this is a simple byproduct of globalisation. You know all those people who protest the WTO? They really aren't just rabble-rousers who want to see third world economies fail - they are concerned with the growing influence of companies like Disney on the global political stage.

    Which brings us back to Anaheim v. Disney. As the introduction to Beth Dunlop's book on Disney architecture suggests, Disney has begun to restructure the urban landscape in its own themed image. Wherever it goes, it literally restructures the area in its own image: farmland to Disneyland; swamps to Walt Disney World and even reclaiming land for Hong Kong Disneyland. So we have to ask ourselves at some point, not as Disney fans but as concerned citizens of the globe, 'How much is enough?'

    Ok, taking the concerned citizen hat off for a moment, this decision does simultaneously seem like it is using Disney as a poster child for future concerns, and it does smack of biting the hand that feeds. As someone who is about as outside as you can get - I live in another country some fourteen hours worth of travel away - my interest in Anaheim will always largely be in the Disney parks. However, I must applaud any move that seeks to curb the unchecked influence that multinationals have over local, state and sovereign affairs. Power to the people!
    “I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.” - Bill Hicks


  13. #103

    • " Planet of Puddingheads"
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In the TARDIS
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Loomis View Post
    Much has been said in this thread, to which I am admittedly arriving quite late, about the pros and cons of Disney's involvement in the area and the perceptions on both sides on what that involvement has meant and what it will mean for the future. Disney has undoubtedly boosted the local tourism in the area, as there certainly wouldn't be as many 'Good Neighbour' hotels as there are without the existence of the world's most famous theme park.

    However, Disney - as has been said here many times - is a major multinational corporation. For too long, there has been a trend towards letting large corporations bully local and state laws out of the way in the name of "free trade". This isn't something that is isolated to county and state by-laws in the US, but exists in global trade as well. Backroom agreements like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) - and the subsequent and more subtle versions that have come out in the wake of its leak and exposure to the indie media world - would make it possible for corporations like Disney to override local trade; labour; environmental and other laws in the name of "free trade". This is not alarmist nonsense, this is a simple byproduct of globalisation. You know all those people who protest the WTO? They really aren't just rabble-rousers who want to see third world economies fail - they are concerned with the growing influence of companies like Disney on the global political stage.

    Which brings us back to Anaheim v. Disney. As the introduction to Beth Dunlop's book on Disney architecture suggests, Disney has begun to restructure the urban landscape in its own themed image. Wherever it goes, it literally restructures the area in its own image: farmland to Disneyland; swamps to Walt Disney World and even reclaiming land for Hong Kong Disneyland. So we have to ask ourselves at some point, not as Disney fans but as concerned citizens of the globe, 'How much is enough?'

    Ok, taking the concerned citizen hat off for a moment, this decision does simultaneously seem like it is using Disney as a poster child for future concerns, and it does smack of biting the hand that feeds. As someone who is about as outside as you can get - I live in another country some fourteen hours worth of travel away - my interest in Anaheim will always largely be in the Disney parks. However, I must applaud any move that seeks to curb the unchecked influence that multinationals have over local, state and sovereign affairs. Power to the people!
    You talk of restructuring areas in Disney's image but what does entail? Some orange groves in Anaheim that would have been plowed over anyway for homes (and if Disneyland were never built, Anaheim would probably resemble Stanton or Westminster) , swampland in Florida (IMO the best example of restructuring I have ever seen) and some barren land in Hong Kong (not to mention Paris).

    Just four parcels of land in the whole world. I myself would rather live in a "Disneyfied", if you will, community rather than some place that ends up like Compton or East LA.

    And if it means "Bullying" the local city council so be it. They have been elected by the people to do what's right for the people and last I heard, in the case of Anaheim, the people (majority) do not want housing in the Resort district but yet Galloway, Kring and Hernandez do not hear them, only the sweet siren song of SunCal.
    “No worries, stay calm, one question. 
Do you happen to know how to fly this thing?”

  14. #104

    • Special Agent
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,294

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Disneymike View Post
    And if it means "Bullying" the local city council so be it. They have been elected by the people to do what's right for the people and last I heard, in the case of Anaheim, the people (majority) do not want housing in the Resort district...
    Why do you think anyone would be against housing in the Resort District?

    Or maybe I should say, why are you against housing in the resort district?

  15. #105

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,891

    Re: Anaheim now trying to block a 3rd Theme Park

    Quote Originally Posted by MrLiver View Post
    Why do you think anyone would be against housing in the Resort District?

    Or maybe I should say, why are you against housing in the resort district?
    Near as I can figure there's some inclination to a quasi-facism where a corporation is given authorities which properly belong to government.

    Maybe there's some hope or belief that with Disney would be a 'good facism'


Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 11:30 AM
  2. Sheraton Park Hotel Anaheim vs Park Vue Inn
    By letitsnow in forum So. Cal. Hotel Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 11:01 AM
  3. Krusty the Clown's theme park within a theme park
    By Ride Warrior in forum Other Destinations
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 02:20 PM
  4. I View WDW As Everyone's Theme Park, Not Just Your Theme Park...
    By Micoofy Duck in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 04:59 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-16-2005, 03:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •