Disneyland Resort (DL, DLR, DCA) Discussion Thread

As a Tax payer, who lives in anaheim, this is the way I see it -

The city/residence should have never approved the tax subsidy to begin with, it wasn't needed. Or, it didn't need to be 70% rebate for 20 years. But, it was so that's done.

Disney, and other companies, applied for the rebate and were approved. The hotel was on Disney property, and is still on disney property. The hotel site was moved roughly 1000ft south from the original site. Changing the address from 1401 to 1601.

This address change is what the City is saying gives them the right to deny the tax rebate to disney, because it has a new address.

Not that I think Disney needs the tax break, but they were approved for it. Changing the site address is not a valid reason for the city to revoke ANYTHING. The hotel was and still is on Disney property.

The only real difference the city is citing as an issue is number of permanent jobs created. The original number was 1150 jobs, when the hotel was NOT sitting on top of Downtown Disney. Now that the hotel will use land once occupied by businesses that are now closed, that number will change.

However, there were plans released by the city (and then taken down) that show basically the same total square footage being reintroduced, at ground level, for Downtown Disney Shops and Retail. So, a new study would need to be completed. But, it's likely going to be the same number range. So, again, this is stupid.

The current City Council has been against anything Disney that they have the power to control. No matter what it is. Simply because, it's Disney and they feel Disney is just bad. But, Disney is the reason Anaheim is what it is. I do not think Disney should be able to do what ever they want, but pulling this petty bullsh*t with the hotel, and also the eastern gateway is totally wrong!

Also, Disney moved the hotel back in October, and the city only now chose to notify Disney there would be an issue. After the project had started and DTD locations had been told to close.

The city is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. Does Disney need a subsidy? No. But the city approved a valid application, that it is now trying to revoke. I am done with this current council and they way they think.

There was a final article released last night, saying the city might be willing to work something out.

Here's some additional reading if you want to get more in depth with the whole saga this is turning into.

www.anaheimblog.net Hotel Hold

www.anaheimblog.net Tax Revenue

City Notice / Disney Notice

https://www.ocregister.com Possible Resolution

We need to hear both sides of the story. Of course the city sounds like the bad one right now but they probably have a reason.

We have both sides.

The City Council is holding the Tax Rebate Incentive hostage from Disney because of the change of address of the hotel. Its that simple.

The reason the current councils is doing this, is because the majority of them don't agree that Disney should be getting a rebate.

But, no matter anyones current opinion of the rebate, the previous council approved it. And, therefore, it should be honored.

If the city does not honor the agreement, then that sets a precedent that the city can/will void an agreement legally made; if the council suddenly decides it is not to their liking. That does not look good to new business or business that wants to expand within the city.

If the city does not honor the agreement, then that sets a precedent that the city can/will void an agreement legally made; if the council suddenly decides it is not to their liking. That does not look good to new business or business that wants to expand within the city.

I think that last statement is the key point here. It's not whether Disney needs or deserves the tax break, the city already voted to give it to them and they made construction plans accordingly. The city looks bad here canceling the deal on a technicality and it will make companies in the future hesitant to deal with them.

If the city does not honor the agreement, then that sets a precedent that the city can/will void an agreement legally made; if the council suddenly decides it is not to their liking. That does not look good to new business or business that wants to expand within the city.

 

I think that last statement is the key point here. It's not whether Disney needs or deserves the tax break, the city already voted to give it to them and they made construction plans accordingly. The city looks bad here canceling the deal on a technicality and it will make companies in the future hesitant to deal with them.

Correct!

As a Tax payer, who lives in anaheim, this is the way I see it -

 

The city/residence should have never approved the tax subsidy to begin with, it wasn't needed. Or, it didn't need to be 70% rebate for 20 years. But, it was so that's done.

 

Disney, and other companies, applied for the rebate and were approved. The hotel was on Disney property, and is still on disney property. The hotel site was moved roughly 1000ft south from the original site. Changing the address from 1401 to 1601.

 

This address change is what the City is saying gives them the right to deny the tax rebate to disney, because it has a new address.

 

Not that I think Disney needs the tax break, but they were approved for it. Changing the site address is not a valid reason for the city to revoke ANYTHING. The hotel was and still is on Disney property.

 

The only real difference the city is citing as an issue is number of permanent jobs created. The original number was 1150 jobs, when the hotel was NOT sitting on top of Downtown Disney. Now that the hotel will use land once occupied by businesses that are now closed, that number will change.

 

However, there were plans released by the city (and then taken down) that show basically the same total square footage being reintroduced, at ground level, for Downtown Disney Shops and Retail. So, a new study would need to be completed. But, it's likely going to be the same number range. So, again, this is stupid.

 

The current City Council has been against anything Disney that they have the power to control. No matter what it is. Simply because, it's Disney and they feel Disney is just bad. But, Disney is the reason Anaheim is what it is. I do not think Disney should be able to do what ever they want, but pulling this petty bullsh*t with the hotel, and also the eastern gateway is totally wrong!

 

Also, Disney moved the hotel back in October, and only now chose to notify Disney there would be an issue. After the project had started and DTD locations had been told to close.

 

The city is cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. Does Disney need a subsidy? No. But the city approved it a valid application, that it is now trying to revoke. I am done with this current council and they way they think.

 

There was a final article released last night, saying the city might be willing to work something out.

 

Here's some additional reading if you want to get more in depth with the whole saga this is turning into.

 

www.anaheimblog.net Hotel Hold

 

www.anaheimblog.net Tax Revenue

 

City Notice / Disney Notice

 

https://www.ocregister.com Possible Resolution

If the city does not honor the agreement, then that sets a precedent that the city can/will void an agreement legally made; if the council suddenly decides it is not to their liking. That does not look good to new business or business that wants to expand within the city.

 

I think that last statement is the key point here. It's not whether Disney needs or deserves the tax break, the city already voted to give it to them and they made construction plans accordingly. The city looks bad here canceling the deal on a technicality and it will make companies in the future hesitant to deal with them.

 

Correct!

Geez Chris, if this is basically what's going on between Council and Disney...I feel sorry that your tax dollars are going to such a waste of time.

We have both sides.

 

The City Council is holding the Tax Rebate Incentive hostage from Disney because of the change of address of the hotel. Its that simple.

 

The reason the current councils is doing this, is because the majority of them don't agree that Disney should be getting a rebate.

 

But, no matter anyones current opinion of the rebate, the previous council approved it. And, therefore, it should be honored.

 

 

If the city does not honor the agreement, then that sets a precedent that the city can/will void an agreement legally made; if the council suddenly decides it is not to their liking. That does not look good to new business or business that wants to expand within the city.

I don't see it as a the city voiding an agreement legally made, because they're not voiding anything, and correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I've read, the city basically said that if they want to build their hotel with their tax break, they are free to do so at the location they initially applied for/agreed on. Additionally, the city is not allowing them to change the address. Again the point being Disney wants to change the existing deal which the city doesn't want to do, not the city voiding the current one.

My guess is they'll come to sort of middle ground and get the project done on time.

^That is correct. The original hotel plans are still valid with the rebate.

The issue with that is, the city didn't tell Disney that in october when they submitted new plans in a new location. They told them over 9 months later, after Disney had started the project. And, in my opinion, I believe the City did this to try and "Have their cake, and eat it too". Trying to get to a point where Disney would still go ahead with the project because of investments already made, even if the City revoked the rebate. It's the city playing dirty, and I have had enough of it.

Moving the hotel does require changes to the agreement, and the city is refusing to make them. There-by voiding the agreement.

^

~ Chris For Anaheim City Council! ~

^

 

~ Chris For Anaheim City Council! ~

 

Slogan...

#HesHadEnoughOfIt

As a Tax payer, who lives in anaheim, this is the way I see it -

I didn't want to paste your big quote of text, so I included this part only, but I just wanted to say, great job with that post. That's EXACTLY how I see it. If they didn't like it, they should have told them when Disney gave them the heads up the location was being moved 8 months ago. Not after people lose their jobs and renters have left DD and Disney has been thinking for the last 8 months this is a "go" until mere DAYS before their meet up with the council.

And for a second, let's ignore technicalities, and just be practical here: moving the hotel 1000 feet away on the same property is by NO MEANS a reasonable justification for any of this City Council crap, and is absurdly petty. It's going to be advantageous for the city no matter where it is.

What seems to be happening, is they're hoping by pulling a fast one at the last minute, that Disney will just say screw it, and still move forward with the location change, thus annulling the tax breaks. Very shady sleazy way to go about business if you ask me.

Also, I just want to add: I was an Orange County resident for 30 years before I moved a couple years ago (because I was fed up with California) and live about 10 minutes from Disneyland so I was always driving by the park on the 5, or driving around the park to different locations in Anaheim. And I don't know if this was all Disney but back when CA Adventure opened, Disney pretty much did a complete face-lift of the entire surrounding area of the resort. I'm talking redoing streets, a carpool lane bridge off the 5 freeway, lightpoles, medians with huge nice trees, even BUS stops were improved. The ENTIRE AREA was redone and it was done SO well, and it still looks good today. I'm definitely not in the "let Disney do whatever they want" boat, but for craps sake, anytime they do anything, it's nothing but good for the entire community. Even if you're just on Harbor going South, all the hotels and restaurants just have a "community" and resort feel to them, and it's extraordinary.

There would be nothing like that if Disney wasn't there, so I am of the opinion the city should be a little more lenient with a company that has practically put Anaheim on the map and has driven the surrounding economy for the past 40+ years.

I have no doubt the hotel will still be built. Disney is leaving hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue on the table by not building a desperately needed new hotel on their property.

It is entirely possible that no one understood the legal ramifications of moving the address until recently. A new deal will be reached where the city gets a little more back (hopefully that deal doesn't screw the CM's: if the ballot measure passes in November raising Anaheim Resort District minimum wage to $18/hr by 2022, I have no doubt Disney will try to exempt themselves from it) and everyone can say they won.

So, in a very surprising turn, Disney went to the city, and asked to be released from ALL current tax agreements. This will allow them to avoid the $18 min wage on the November Ballot, if it were to pass.

Id guess someone did the math and found that any savings from these tax credits would be less than having to pay people $18 minimum wage.

Bloomberg.com

Not surprising at all if you read my post right above yours. But city got more than even I would have guessed.

City had been Disney's bitch for years...finally found a way to fight back and actually won. My guess is Disney will still end up paying the $18/hr as part of the next union negotiations in 3 years, but by not taking the tax incentives they are clearly trying to work around the perpetual inflation or 2% annual minimum wage increase that comes with the law after the $18/hr minimum is hit.

A user on Reddit apparently restored old footage from their grandparents' trip to Disneyland in 1956. There's no audio but it's very well done. Also, Walt himself shows up!

[youtu_be]

"And for a second, let's ignore technicalities, and just be practical here: moving the hotel 1000 feet away on the same property is by NO MEANS a reasonable justification for any of this City Council crap, and is absurdly petty. It's going to be advantageous for the city no matter where it is. "

I read an article that states that the original hotel project was supposed to add 1,000 permanent jobs at the hotel with no other job losses. When Disney moved the project, they had to shut down existing businesses, including Rainforest Cafe and other places, resulting in 450 job losses. I guess Anaheim wasn't pleased that they were only going to get 550 net job increases instead of 1,000 for all those millions of dollars that they were giving away and disputed the agreement.

^ An new job study was needed to actually show what the new number of permanent jobs would be, and that was never completed. The hotel has lots of ground level square footage dedicated to replacing those Downtown Disney locations. In fact, the total square footage lost was nearly the same as the amount available in the new plan. And the new plan borke that up into several food locations, instead of 3 restaurants like before.

But, none of this even matters now! Last night, the city voted 7-0 to anul the tax contracts with Disney. So, were all back at square one. No one is beholden to anyone to meet any requirements.

KTLA.com

According to the LA Times, Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge cantina will serve pre-mixed alcoholic beverages. A first at Disneyland for regular park guests. Apparently, they are not going to let people leave the cantina with their drinks and walk around Disneyland though.

www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-disneyland-star-wars-land-20180830-story.html

According to the LA Times, Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge cantina will serve pre-mixed alcoholic beverages. A first at Disneyland for regular park guests. Apparently, they are not going to let people leave the cantina with their drinks and walk around Disneyland though.

 

www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-disneyland-star-wars-land-20180830-story.html

Not selling booze in Disneyland has cost them millions of dollars a year in revenue, so good for them for finally getting with the times.

Let the "But Walt..." bitching commence.

I think the Blue Bayou should get in on the alcoholic drinks. Same restrictions as the Cantina. After all, the pirates are drinking.

They should sell alcohol near It’s A Small World.

I can easily see, every table service restaurant selling alcohol very soon. With the same restrictions: You must consume it within the building it's being served.

I know people bring in alcohol ALL the time to the park, so I do not think this would ever equate to there being "Drunk people" wandering around the parks now.

How about a trade. Allow alcohol, get rid of Disneyland "Gang" social clubs.