What a touching illustration of the blind trust Anaheim’s staff and elected leaders have in the Disney Corporation!
We were already put out that we couldn’t get our hands on the Cal State Fullerton economic report Disney was relying on to paint their juggernaut DisneylandForward proposal as an unalloyed good for the people of Anaheim – not only do we question the bias of a business school that’s a longtime recipient of Disney’s financial patronage, they also wouldn’t give us any more than a 9-page Executive Summary lacking any primary source citations.
Well, now we know that THAT’S ALL THE CITY OF ANAHEIM HAS EITHER, a 9-page Executive Summary lacking any primary source citations!
One more reason that the scheduled April 16 Council vote MUST be delayed for a few months. The Anaheim Democrats Club had ALREADY passed the following resolution saying as much, before this new development developed, which we intend to read and present at tomorrow’s (April 2) Council meeting. (On the Planning Commission, the thoughtful Luis Andres Perez agreed that more time and study was needed, but he was outvoted by his colleagues, which include the longtime Disney beneficiary Lucille Kring, the longtime SOAR board member Michelle Lieberman, and Sidhu-Ament Anaheim First frontwoman Amelia Castro.)
Anaheim Democrats Club Resolution: Delay Vote on Disneyland Forward
Whereas, taxpayer-funded staff time has been used to openly promote DisneylandForward as a positive project in advance of Anaheim City Council action, and prior to environmental and economic reports on the project’s impacts vs benefits;
Whereas, the City of Anaheim has misinformed the public with inflated claims of Resort benefits, including the myth by SOAR that tourism generates over half of Anaheim’s General Fund;
Whereas, the public has been misinformed that the closure of Magic Way was requested by residents, when neighbors actually requested “traffic calming” on Walnut Street, which appears unrelated to the closure of Magic Way;
Whereas, disruptions to traffic on Walnut Street are associated with semi-trucks blocking the roadway in both directions, backing into the now-inadequate single driveway to deliver goods for the Disneyland Hotel;
Whereas, the City of Anaheim has made no provision or plan for exponentially higher numbers of delivery trucks servicing the needs of a new theme park expansion adjacent to the Disneyland Hotel, accessible only by the single driveway on Walnut Street already inadequate for current use;
Whereas, traffic studies for proposed land use alterations limit studies to those vehicles related to hotel guests, theme park visitors, and cast members, but have not considered the cumulative impact of tour buses, quasi-public transit such as ART/ATN, and the numerous delivery trucks which exceed the 6,000 lb. weight limit on local streets;
Whereas, the public has been misinformed about the cost saving of street closures when Disney already funds maintenance of the streets in question through the Resort Assessment District;
Whereas, the public has been denied information, or misinformed, regarding how vehicles diverted from street closures are most likely to impact nearby residential streets not intended for additional traffic;
Whereas, DisneylandForward allows disruptive theme park operations to encroach on established residential neighborhoods, claiming that rides/attractions will be housed within “show buildings,” while failing to account for the increased noise of tens of thousands of visitors, outdoor performances, and other noise-producing activities associated with theme parks that are incompatible with adjacent homes;
Whereas, a Disney-requested City Ordinance restricts the heights of structures outside the theme park, owned by neighboring businesses, while DisneylandForward demands construction of an architectural “feature” 300 feet tall, equivalent to Sleeping Beauty’s Castle (77 feet) on top of the Guardians of the Galaxy tower (184 feet) with room to spare;
Whereas, the public has never been offered any environmental study on the impact of Disneyland fireworks, despite the noise, and potential air pollution from shells exploding mid-air, or impact of unknown materials deposited on surrounding yards from the debris field blowing into residential neighborhoods;
Whereas, the Amended Development Agreement fails to define restrictions on new fireworks shows if they launch from the current location east of Disneyland Drive, where noise intrusion and debris fields already impact residential neighborhoods;
Whereas, the City of Anaheim’s Statement of Overriding Consideration seeks to ignore predictions of negative environmental impacts in the name of alleged “economic benefits,” lacking an independent, unbiased study commissioned by the City of Anaheim for the benefit of Anaheim;
Whereas, the primary justification for DisneylandForward is an economic report from CSUF Business School, a longtime recipient of Disney’s financial patronage, which may represent a conflict of interest inappropriate for the City of Anaheim to use for the decision-making process;
Whereas, the Disney-funded CSUF economic report has been withheld, other than a 9-page Executive Summary lacking primary source citations, including claims unsupported by real-world data readily available in City of Anaheim annual budgets showing actual tax revenues tied to Disney investments in the past;
Whereas, DisneylandForward proposes to add 13,800 new employees, many earning below the poverty-line for the Orange County region, where even recent gains in pay scale fail to keep pace with inflation, and many current Disney employees are still unhoused;
Whereas, DisneylandForward allows 40 additional years for Disney to develop their property by continuing entitlements they failed to construct prior to 2010 as anticipated by, but not required in, the Development Agreement of 1996;
Whereas, the City of Anaheim appears unwilling to negotiate benefits beyond minimal CEQA requirements, and token amounts offered by Disney for parks and housing insufficient to offset the cumulative impacts of disruptions to the daily lives of Anaheim residents caused by a local economy heavily reliant on tourism;
Whereas, news articles report litigation regarding Disney workplace conditions, a hostile proxy battle for control of Disney’s governing Board, and a much-publicized dispute with the State of Florida, as well as business practices reportedly poorly-received by consumers, such as costly new streaming services, low-budget theme park improvements, and unprofitable movie projects, potentially undermining the appearance of the company’s stability;
Therefore, be it Resolved, that the Anaheim Democrats Club requests the Anaheim City Council reconsider DisneylandForward and delay any vote until the following may be determined for the long-term health of Anaheim:
- The City of Anaheim should discontinue the use of staff time or other taxpayer-funded resources to promote DisneylandForward prior to a final decision by City Council,
- The City of Anaheim should conduct independent studies, free of bias or conflict of interest, to determine actual cost-benefit analysis for the closure of public streets, the impact of increasing low-wage labor without adequate workforce housing programs, and claims of future tax benefits to the city, based on primary source records such as Anaheim’s budget documents, not estimated calculations based on regional modeling programs,
- The City of Anaheim should fully disclose all documents used in the decision-making process, including those studies and reports ordered by, on behalf of, or funded by, Disney, with disclosure well in advance of final decisions, providing the public adequate time to review source materials, and ask questions of staff, with time for responses to be offered,
- The City of Anaheim should require Disney to create, and comply with, a plan for delivery of supplies to those areas subject to the Amended Development Agreement, to ensure existing residences and businesses are not impacted by the alterations in land use inconsistent with previous plans,
- The City of Anaheim should build accountability and consequences into noise ordinances, in the event Disney exceeds acceptable noise levels, including the closure of sections of property tied to such violations until solutions may be implemented;
- The City of Anaheim should consider the impacts of visual intrusion upon neighbors, and require Disney to comply with height restrictions similar to those imposed on adjacent properties, by either removing restrictions that interfere with profitable redevelopment of nearby properties, or scale down Disney’s proposal for a 300-foot tall “feature,” far higher than the tallest structure currently in Anaheim,
- The City of Anaheim should require Disney fund an independent, peer-reviewed study of environmental impacts related to the current, and/or future expanded use of pyrotechnics displays by Disney, including the impacts of noise, air quality, water, and ground pollution, to neighborhoods outside of Disney property,
- The City of Anaheim should include protections for Anaheim taxpayers in the Amended Development Agreement, including “clawbacks,” to tie specific benefits, such as the closure or abandonment of public streets, to reasonable development benchmarks and timelines to be met by Disney in order to receive such benefits,
- The City of Anaheim should partner only with stable organizations able to fulfill the obligations of new agreements, and withhold approval of a new Amended Development Agreement until Disney resolves issues such as a hostile Board proxy battle, while stabilizing their business model to reflect the long-term economic ability required to fulfill the commitments of DisneylandForward.
Like we’ve said. Everyone likes Disneyland, but some of us love Anaheim more.
I didn’t mention, but Disney/CSUF’s excuse for not sharing the economic report with the public OR the City is that it contains “proprietary information.” (Like, maybe the recipe for magic dust?)
A lawyer friend of ours reacts, “That’s hysterical! Keep pressing the need for source material and evidence backing up assertions made in the executive summary. Disney’s claim that some information is proprietary should be examined in camera by a judge or other neutral; the appropriate information should be redacted from the rest of the document, which should be read by the council, its staff, and the public. Reliance on a short, conclusory executive summary is inadequate and a breach of duty owed to residents and taxpayers.”
That was the City’s excuse for not releasing the report, that it had been drafted by CSUF with proprietary info provided by Disney. Then when I demanded that the City Attorney tell me in writing that I could not have a copy, or why it could not be redacted, i finally got the info that the City never received the entire report, they only got the 9-page Exec Summary. That is alarming, because as bad as it was to think we could not read the full study I assumed City Council must have reviewed in order to continue championing this project even in the face of increasing opposition from the community, discovering they are championing this project after NOT getting a full report and only receiving a 9-page summary is WAY worse. How did they NOT DEMAND to see the full report?
If you were buying a house, would you take the word of the seller’s Brother-in-law for an appraised value and home inspection and then not ask to see the documents?
This is the Sidhu corruption still hard at work.
The “proprietary info” part was pure, unadulterated bullshit. Once they receive something like that it would become a public document. So now that lie really makes staff look bad – not only didn’t they have the full report, they had to lie to cover up that fact.
The City Manager (how does he still have the job?) and the Planning Director are in the tank for Disney, 100%. That’s why the City Spokesman sounds so much like a Disney employee.
I didn’t have the link before, but here is that “executive summary” which is all anyone’s allowed to see at this point. And look how proud the “Titans” are to do this trusted work for Disney!
https://news.fullerton.edu/feature/disney-economic-impact/
“The fact that the center received a $75,000 grant from Disneyland Resort to provide this impact study highlights the capabilities of the center and the value CSUF provides to the region, explains Anil Puri, center director.”
Yeah, right.
Do you remember that name Anil Puri? Natalie Rubalcava utters it regularly with reverence as though he were the unquestioned god of economics.
For example, when discussing economic impact reports on Measure A, bids were taken, but Natalie was constantly, “I don’t know why we don’t just ask Anil Puri!”
I bet he has connections to the OCBC cartel. One big happy family.
“The City of Anaheim should require Disney fund an independent, peer-reviewed study of environmental impacts related to the current, and/or future expanded use of pyrotechnics displays by Disney, including the impacts of noise, air quality, water, and ground pollution, to neighborhoods outside of Disney property,”
Since the fireworks were NOT part of any CEQA study done in the 90s, and because they are tied to the both past and future development, they are a “project” by anybody’s reasonable definitions.
Fireworks have already been deemed by the courts to constitute a “project” anyhow. It’s time for Disney’s nightly assault on neighbors to be assessed for its environmental impact – noise and air quality.
What’s that 300-foot structure? What level of earthquake is it built to survive?
I remember once asking why the skyscrapers in Manhattan were at either the south tip or in Midtown, and the answer was that those were the places best supported by bedrock. (Wall Street, close to street level and Midtown, within several feet.)
Is Disneyland built close to bedrock? I hadn’t thought that the Anaheim flatlands were — and if not, that’s a problem.
The bigger problem, of course, is that Anaheim cannot be held to any promise it makes. The City Council (and sometimes just the Planning Commission) are as much under their control as they wish, and they seemingly have the right to give back any concession or consideration that the entity that paid for their voter contact might wish them to — without any apparent accountability, let along shame. It makes the capture of the U.S. Supreme Court by the far right look tame, because at least there people try to justify the conflict of interest. The biggest city in Orange County has flat out been purchased by a private interest. Why is this not in the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post?
Why is this not in the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post?
Because they know Disney is way bigger than Anaheim and your claim isn’t true
Yeah, what claim isn’t true? (Expecting crickets, and not Jiminy.)
You’re right that Disney is way bigger than Anaheim. But Anaheim is supposed to be a CITY, with a democratically elected government that is supposed to work for its People, not its biggest corporation. Now go jump in a Tar Pit.
I didn’t expect the Rodent Inquisition!
[Mickey comes in with Goofy and Pluto, all wearing scarlet headgear.]
MICKEY: NO ONE expects the Rodent Inquisition! Our weapons are three: Surprise, Secrecy, Cal State Fullerton, and Anil Puri. FOUR! Our weapons are four: Surprise, Secrecy, Cal State Fullerton, Anil Puri, and a fanatical devotion to privatization of public streets. FIVE!
So..Mickey…is it your position that if the claim IS true it would be worthy of the front page of the NY Times and Washington Post?
Ms. Ward,
Thank you for your email. I contacted the City’s Planning Department regarding your request for the full Economic Report. The department stated that the City received only the Executive Summary, which was previously provided and posted on the City’s website at the following link: https://ca-anaheim.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/53926/Economic-impact-report-executive-summary-2023
Thank you,
Theresa
Theresa Bass, CMC
City Clerk
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. #217
Anaheim, CA 92805
Email: tbass@anaheim.net
Phone: (714) 765-5166 | Fax: (714) 765-4105
how badly was Anahiem hit when the parks shut down for Covid19? Sales tax on no sales? Disney is offering a way to bring more people in. And they are willing to pay for it. Disneyland is a small part of the company’s overall revenues but a huge part of Anaheim’s. Your argument is stupid. Dinset taxes pay for public safety. Pay for infrstructure. And the NY Times and Washington Post wont care. Because the OC Register and LATimes already dont care.
“Disneyland is a small part of the company’s overall revenues…”
Then Disney can afford to pay-up for the relief it wants from the 90s agreement.
I’m not sure how you feel about privatization, Zenger, giving your hostility to both government waste and private capitalization of government resources, but back when we had a normal Republican Party rather than a “death cult” (as you have felicitously put it), it was a major Republican theme. Disney Forward is largely about privatization (and most of the rest seems to be about reneging on prior commitments.) If Disney could clear out much of the Anaheim flatlands to make sure that no poor people were around (other than their own employees), I think that they would.
As far as a small part of their overall resources, the Mickey Mouse commenter is batshit crazy. Ron DeSantis went after Disney for the wrong reasons (culture warrior fights against the one best thing about Disney outside of its programming) where Disney pretty much had to stand up for queer communities because it its employees are creatives and they’d lose good people if they didn’t support them. And as I recall, the overseas parks have not been doing so well, and Disney+ itself (which I very much enjoy) is no longer printing money the way it used to. So Disneyland, specifically because Disney has a chokehold on Anaheim and would happily take advantage of the bankruptcy sale it would help to induce, is actually a much larger part of Disney’s empire than one might expect. That’s why we need to get rid of Disney’s charter — or have the state dissolve it due to Disney’s abuse — so its Council and Planning Commission decisions can be more easily challenged in court.
Disney already pays. Job trainng for all employees to move beyong pushing a broom. You, on the other hand Dave, havent worked in govrbnment for 11 years. You are a professional failure who lives off his wife’s income. You are a loser
Being stalked must mean I’m important to you.
We should demand that Mickey erect an animatronic Zenger next to the talking Abe Lincoln at It’s a Small World. It could say a few words about how greedy special interests should never be allowed undue influence over local elected governments.
Hell, I’ll do it myself and cheaper than an animatron costs. I need the dough. I haven’t worked in “govrbnment” in 11 years.
You get some benefits so long as you keep your mouth shut and do what they say, is that the idea? Good idea not to write under your own name, Rodent!
I think you could say we hijacked the City’s/Disney’s Misinformation Workshop:
ALSO, if you haven’t seen it, you should really read Carolina Mendez’ great Voice column on this shitshow:
https://voiceofoc.org/2024/04/mendez-the-disneylandforward-dilemma-a-crisis-of-transparency-and-trust/