.
.
.
The group “Citizens for a Better Anaheim” will announce Thursday morning that it will launch a referendum drive to stop two of the three Anaheim Hotel subsidies that were approved by the Anaheim City Council on July 26. The effort is associated with UNITE-HERE Local 11 and word comes out in a press release under the name of its Secretary-Treasurer, Ada Briceño. Here’s the meat of the press release.
Citizens for a Better Anaheim seeks vote on two controversial development agreements
WHAT: Citizens for a Better Anaheim is launching a petition signature drive aimed at sending two controversial Anaheim hotel development agreements to the ballot.
Dozens will gather Thursday at one of the proposed projects, the Anaheim Plaza Hotel, to protest the Anaheim City Council’s giveaways to hotel developers. The rally will kick off the referendum petition drive and invite all concerned Anaheim residents to join the campaign.
WHEN: Thursday, August 4, 10:00 am
WHERE: Anaheim Plaza Hotel, corner of Katella Blvd and Disney Way
WHO: 50 union members in red t-shirts; UNITE HERE Local 11 Secretary-Treasurer Ada Briceño
WHY: Taxpayers and union members of Citizens for a Better Anaheim contend that development agreements for the proposed Anaheim Plaza and Anabella hotels are government giveaways to luxury hotel developers—money that could fund schools, roads or other city services that benefit more of the city’s residents.
Critics of the proposed projects add that the public benefits listed in the development agreements are limited and non-specific, despite the proposed projects receiving a 70% rebate on hotel taxes for 20 years. They contend that the current City Council is giving away valuable tax revenue and land use entitlements just before Anaheim’s first-ever by-council district elections, which will radically alter the size and makeup of the Council and likely would have affected the outcome of such significant approvals.
The tax rebates are part of Anaheim’s Hotel Incentive Project, which encourages more Four Diamond hotels in the Resort District.
A Disney development also proposed under the City’s Hotel Incentive Program is an example of how the public could receive more benefits from tax breaks in development deals. The project would guarantee quality jobs because of a prior agreement between Disney and UNITE HERE Local 11, the union that represents thousands of Disneyland cast members.
Citizens for a Better Anaheim is comprised of concerned Anaheim residents and taxpayers and Resort District employees who are members of UNITE HERE Local 11.
I am very glad to see UNITE-HERE push this petition drive, which will need to have about 12,600 signatures turned in by August 25 (although it will seek to exceed that goal substantially just to be safe), in part because a group of people including Brian Chuchua were going to have to do it otherwise — and we are far less equipped for the task.
Some thoughts:
- This will affect the two non-Disney hotels, the ownership of which traces back to investment groups based in Hong Kong. These interest did agree to a Project Labor Agreement to satisfy the (mostly temporary) interests of the Building Trades, who have been out in force supporting the subsidy. They have not shown interest in providing similar agreements — or even accepting a “card check” system, which would enhance the ability of workers to unionize and bargain collectively for their own benefits — with those who would be working at the hotels over those 20 years. Such workers would likely affiliate with UNITE-HERE.
- Technically, the “subsidy” is mandated rebate of 70% of the Transient Occupy Taxes on the two hotels for 20 years after each opens, which is anticipated to forfeit about $300-350 million per year of what would otherwise be revenue for the City, controlled by future Anaheim City Councils. (That the tax money initially does come into the City accounts before going back out allows the City to say things like “a huge percentage of the revenue to the city is from the Resort District,” glossing over the fact that that revenue is not “revenue” in the sense that the City can save or spend it, but that it is earmarked to be returned to the hoteliers.
- The balance of the $550 million or so expected to be rebated over 20 years goes to the Disney-affiliated hotel. The Disney-owned hotel does have some sort of at least provisional agreement with UNITE-HERE that its future hotel workers will be unionized. (The union leadership seems pretty confident about this.) But the reason that the Disney hotel is excluded from the referendum drive is that the City arranged for the agreement to fund the hotel to be “referendum proof” — in other words, not an ordinance or even a resolution. This seems fishy to some of us, me included, but as people are not lining up to fund a lawsuit over it it will probably survive — at least for now. (Could a new City Council rescind the agreement, which already puts another 20% of TOT on Disney-owned property — meaning that 90% in total will be rebated — towards paying debt service on a bond that largely benefitted Disney? I think that it probably could — but it won’t be easy or straightforward to make that happen. Hey, are you registered to vote yet?)
Can you post a link to the press release?
No, I received it via email.
Hotel workers union vs. construction workers unions – this should be interesting ….
How sad. Disney Agreement Good. But hey, what about the parks and roads and schools and city services?
Add a Kris Murray recall to page two since you have the signers that far. What’s the incremental cost ?
Hmm. Not a bad idea.
Not urgent at the moment.
That confirms some speculation about what is urgent, and for who. Thanks.
Then let me explain: we have critical elections in November. It is WAY too late to put Murray’s recall on that ballot. So the only way we could do it — since the next General Election in Anaheim is in Nov. 2018 and would not have its results certified until after her term ended — would be if a new Council called a Special Election. So there too, the November election takes priority.
Does “not urgent” make more sense to you now? Heaven forbid you would just trust my judgment.
Just finished the article and read it through a couple times. We just want to go on record on this end as saying that we trust your judgment. Don’t get distracted by the comments and keep focused.
Not opposing the Disney deal revokes any moral authority this group could possibly have.
What a shame.
As noted, the City set it up so that it might not be liable to challenge. The union doesn’t need that distracting headache.
I don’t agree. Circ three petitions isn’t any harder or distracting than two.
Again, Ryan: the City does not admit that the motion to establish the tax rebate subsidy for Disney is subject to referendum. They presumably would not even count the signatures unless ordered to by the court. That’s extra cost, extra distraction, and a PR headache if the City wins on the Disney issue.
If anyone else wants to do a signature drive on the Disney subsidy, they have until August 25 to get in the signatures. That would stall the project until either November 2018 or until such time that the City may call a special election over it. There’s another reason why the November election is more important than all of the other Anaheim matters combined — among other things, the Council can call a special election at a time when participation would be lowest (and most Disney-dominated) — or not.
Again, I don’t agree.
I think it says we want our cut and we’re going to pitch a fit until we get it.
I don’t think it says we’re tired of residents getting screwed to further corporate greed.
I don’t see how you can reach that conclusion based on what I’ve said about the City having intentionally put the Disneyland deal beyond the reach of the referendum process. Yes, the City may be wrong in its overreaching in that interpretation, but that’s only going to be determined by a long and ugly lawsuit. (I have some experience with fighting the City on those.) If they have money to put into either signature gatherers (to put 2 of 3 deals to a referendum) or a legal challenge (that becomes moot without those signatures), OF COURSE they have to do the former.
You can look for hypocrisy or selfish motives all you want — but the fact is that NOBODY ELSE is stepping up (with the exception of Brian and me, with far fewer resources) to take this on. You’re attacking the only entity that has acquitted themselves of moral complicity at all! We don’t even GET to the hypocrisy question you’d like to raise under those circumstances.
Ryan’s right. Blathering about parks and roads and schools on only some of the deals is transparent bullshit.
Still, I wish them luck in their siggy gathering.
Excellent news
Dave is right. Silly shit. From special interest agitators, trying to fleece the taxpayers.