How low-cost housing lost in Anaheim - LA Times, 2/15/07

[disneytim]

LA Times, 2/15/07
How low-cost housing lost in Anaheim

By Dave McKibben, Times Staff Writer

In Anaheim, even the tie goes to Disney.

A pitched battle between housing advocates and Disney officials turned into a political convention of sorts Tuesday. Low-wage employees — a few near tears — and well-connected business types — many wearing red "Save the Anaheim Resort District" stickers — vented over the future of the city's tourist neighborhood.

Although the council indicated last year that it supported the idea of bucking Disney and approving a large residential complex with low-cost units near the gates of Disneyland, that support dissolved into a 2-2 council split by evening's end — a tie that meant the housing plan was dead.

In its place, the land in the resort district — adjacent to acreage where Disney has toyed with the idea of a third amusement park — can now be developed as a hotel-condominium project.

The proposed development had become a sore spot between some city leaders and Disney brass, who said housing would be inappropriate in the tourist-serving quarters around Disneyland and California Adventure. And the hours leading up to the vote underscored the stakes, with last-minute lobbying by Disney officials, calls from lawyers to the city and well-orchestrated campaigns from both fronts.

Full Story: How low-cost housing lost in Anaheim

[TikiRoomLiz]

I'm not too familiar with all the politics behind this issue, but I'm wondering exactly why did they have to propose the low cost housing to be in that specific place? Couldn't they have picked another area that is within a reasonable distance from there.

And the one low wage earner that was quoted, saying that she has to drive a four hour commute. I'm thinking maybe they should try to implement more commute choices, like putting a Metrolink station around there - just make it easier to get to the area on public transportation for those that are far away.

I have to admit though that I'm glad this isn't going through for the Resort area.

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

Originally Posted by TikiRoomLiz

I'm not too familiar with all the politics behind this issue, but I'm wondering exactly why did they have to propose the low cost housing to be in that specific place? Couldn't they have picked another area that is within a reasonable distance from there.

Probably because that parcel is already zoned for residential; a mobile home/trailer park currently occupies that land.

So where exactly will the current residents in those mobile homes relocate to? No way they will have the financial means to afford one of those new condos, since most folks who live this way are typically on fixed incomes, retirement or disability. And that mobile home park has been there for decades.

Instead of dealing with the issue of affordable housing in Anaheim, this pushes it further into the toilet. NIMBY is alive and well at the Disneyland Resort.

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyDriveBy

Probably because that parcel is already zoned for residential; a mobile home/trailer park currently occupies that land.

So where exactly will the current residents in those mobile homes relocate to? No way they will have the financial means to afford one of those new condos, since most folks who live this way are typically on fixed incomes, retirement or disability. And that mobile home park has been there for decades.

Instead of dealing with the issue of affordable housing in Anaheim, this pushes it further into the toilet. NIMBY is alive and well at the Disneyland Resort.

NIMBY is the status quo nowadays, unfortunately.

[steamboatpete]

Originally Posted by TikiRoomLiz

I'm not too familiar with all the politics behind this issue, but I'm wondering exactly why did they have to propose the low cost housing to be in that specific place? Couldn't they have picked another area that is within a reasonable distance from there.

And the one low wage earner that was quoted, saying that she has to drive a four hour commute. I'm thinking maybe they should try to implement more commute choices, like putting a Metrolink station around there - just make it easier to get to the area on public transportation for those that are far away.

I have to admit though that I'm glad this isn't going through for the Resort area.

There is plenty of dirt poor low income housing just about six miles away in Santa Ana, with easy public transportation to the resort area. Why would anyone drive four hours to get to a low paying job?

[TikiRoomLiz]

Thanks BlueSkyDriveBy for answering my question. I'm not familiar with the area beyond Disneyland, and the information you provided now makes me understand the issues behind this whole thing. But, I guess Anaheim really likes that Goose and the Golden Eggs it supplies.

Steamboatpete though makes a good point. Santa Ana does have affordable housing and is close by to make a very tolerable commute. Personally when I would look for jobs I'd limit my search to those that are not more then an hour away - my farthest job being in Santa Monica (from Los Angeles). There is no way I'd ever pick a job that sends me so far out of my way.

[aashee]

I'm not sure it's fair to say "big deal, it's a trailer park right now". In Orange county I'd say most of the trailer inhabitants are retired folks just looking to pay little in rent.

With trailer parks you have a mix of people, with low income housing it attracts a different type of clientel. NIMBY is absolutely true all over, ask the proposed El Toro airport backers. Much like you don't want a liquor store near a school, not wanting low-income housing near a family themed park is a close comparison.

Chad

[themur]

Any type of residential real estate development (low income or fair market value) in the resort district is really inappropriate. The needs for both will clash.

Regardless of type of "homes" that go in there, at some point, they will begin to complain about the traffic and noise - things that go with a business area.

I certainly would hope that Disney and Anaheim could work together to build some affordable housing in a part of Anaheim that is better suited to a residential project.

[ALIASd]

Coalition seeks housing, wage standards for Anaheim development

Twenty groups and labor unions unite to compel builders in sports district to pay a 'living wage' and build low-cost housing and child-care facilities.

By Dave McKibben
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 21, 2007

A coalition of 20 faith-based organizations, environmental groups and labor unions has created a community development agreement that would compel builders in the Anaheim sports district to meet prevailing wage standards and construct low-cost housing and child-care facilities.

The deal would be similar to one in San Diego in which homes, shops and offices were built around the Padres' new downtown baseball stadium, Petco Park. Although the covenant has not been ratified by any of the three builders being considered for developing lofts, office towers and retail districts on city-owned land next to Angel Stadium, one builder plans to meet with the coalition this week.

"Their vision for that site seems pretty compatible to ours," said Eric Heffner, vice president of Windstar Properties. "We want to build a sustainable community for the long term.

"A community is a whole bunch of different factions coming together to do what's best for the community. What defines a community is not the buildings but the spirit. We welcome this group's participation in the process."

The coalition formed last summer when the 53-acre parcel was being offered as one of two potential Southland sites for a National Football League stadium. As talks with the NFL stalled, city officials began entertaining offers from developers interested in building retail and office space, housing and possibly a stadium on the property.

The coalition, which calls itself Orange County Communities for Responsible Development, includes Los Amigos of Orange County, a Latino Advocacy group; the Dayle McIntosh Center, a Garden Grove agency that helps the disabled; Unite Here, a hotel and restaurant workers union; and Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice.

"The stadium project is an important, symbolic site, and there's going to be a huge investment of public resources," said Eric Altman, the coalition's executive director. "There is a broad coalition of groups that don't necessary always work together, but they all have a common vision for what could happen on the site."

The land is part of the so-called Platinum Triangle, a still-developing, high-density commercial and residential hub envisioned as the city's future downtown.

About 9,500 housing units are expected to be built in the Platinum Triangle, but none are designated as low-cost housing. Last week, the Anaheim City Council rejected a controversial residential project that included low-cost housing in the city's resort district. Disney and various business leaders vigorously opposed the plan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2162722.story