Disney Head Speaks Out On Referendum Against SunCal Project
Posted by: Jubal | 05/21/2007 5:20 PM
I spotted this new article on the OC Register website on Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger's first comments on his company's attempt to control a 26-acre lot his company doesn't own.
After some standard talking points blather, Iger gets down to cases:
"But we don't believe that the property that's being talked about is property that should be developed for housing. We just don't believe it's what's called recreation- or business-friendly, nor would it throw off as much in taxes as the businesses that could go into that place."
Iger's opinion about what the property should be used for is duly noted, and it is duly noted the Disney corporation doesn't own the property. Disney-ites will respond that SunCal options, but doesn't own the property in question. But SunCal is footing the cost of that property and the option is de facto owner in the context of this battle. Disney has no legal claim, yet seeks to control what the property will be used for -- and the duly elected Anaheim City Council, via due process, amended the general plan to allow for residential development on that parcel.
The referendum is a continuation of Disney's effort to ensure the property -- which Disney does not own -- is developed in accordance with its wishes, notwithstanding the actions of the city council. Disney and it s SOAR organization have every right to pursue a referendum, but let's remain aware of why they are going this route.
There's another disturbing sub-text to Iger's remarks: that a how a property is used should be determined primarily by what will maximize tax revenues, and not what the property owner would like. That view accord primacy to the desires of government officials over the desires of property owners.
As this battle moves forward into the next phase, it is important not to let those points get lost amidst the chaff of the Disney PR offensive.
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Actually, property owners have been restricted to specific uses by those who do not own their property since the first cave dwellers agreed to band together for protection in early civilization. It's called "zoning". We have a very carefully crafted General Plan, and the residents and business owners of Anaheim expect the City Council to abide by that General Plan. That includes Disney, but this is not a “Disney as big bully” issue. All of the residents I have encountered feel threatened by zoning changes, fearing that our neighborhoods are next. We, the residents of Anaheim, have chosen to take a stand in support of the General Plan, we just happen to be using a high profile parcel to do it with, and Disney is being gracious enough to fund a fight that the residents would fight even without The Mouse.
The property owner participated in the planning stages of the Resort District Specific Plan, nothing was done without their input. And “highest and best use” is not a God given and Constitutionally protected right. The parcel was not zoned for the high density residential that SunCal wants BEFORE it was zoned for resort uses. If the owner does not want to sell as a hotel, they are still permitted to use it as a mobile home park, there is no taking here. But we do not grant folks the most profitable use simply because it is profitable, or I could put a strip mall on my lot. The parcel is unsuited for higher density residential, there are no schools, parks or grocery stores there to support those additional residents. Imagine the quality of life for anyone forced into a high density project between a freeway and high traffic pattern surface streets. What appeals to tourists is Hell on earth for working families. Disney is not the bad guy here.