Looks like Forde and Mollrich have hooked up with a real cash cow this time. They will certainly be able to retire after this one.

I can just imagine the Disney Machine fighting SunCal's other projects elsewhere . . . who can out spend & outlast the other?

Meddlesome Nobody is right. I can also imagine the Disney Machine pour money into council races in Anaheim and elsewhere. It doesn't take much money in some local races to turn the tide one way or the other. The next few election cycles should be very interesting.

This post got me interested, so I went to Anaheim.net and looked in the City Clerk records for the Form 460 for the Committee to Defend and Protect Anaheim for the April thru June period.

http://209.234.149.20/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=85374

SunCal has donated over $400,000 to CDPA

And SOAR has had to gather over 50,000 signatures for their two measures, while CDPA hasn't had those expenses. Plus while SOAR has over $200,000 in the bank (after taking in account its debts), CDPA is about $100,000 in debt.

Now CDPA/SunCal is trying to get the initiative they favor (Voters need to approve "Strawberry Field" Zoning changes) without the time or expense that SOAR had to by getting the City Council to waive the requirement.

What will this do, save SunCal up to $500,000 which would normally be needed to pay petition circulators. Money they can spend instead on campaigning on the ballot measures.

And of course, SOAR had a lot of extra expenses due to the fact that CDPA/SunCal persuaded the City Council to "codify" the Zoning Change that the city council approved. This required the SOAR petition gatherers to carry around the entire Anaheim Municipal Code when getting signatures, and since the code is about the size of a large phone book, pretty much prevented petitions to be mailed to registered voters and door to door campaigning. How much extra money did Disney have to donate to SOAR to cover the more expensive way of gathering signatures, and paying for those copies of the Municipal Code to be printed?

I am all for CDPA/SunCal being allowed to propose their "Strawberry Field" Initiative, but not with the City Council waiver. They should have to go through the same time and expense as SOAR had to do to gather signatures on its two measures.

And who knows, CDPA might not even be able to get 10% of the Anaheim registered voters to sign the petition. But if they do, then it should be placed on the ballot, as the citizens requested it. If they can't get the 10%, then it should stay off the ballot.

Jubal could you clarify some of these observations David just made?

Dude - you've only charged these guys $7,500 - while guys like Jones are making off like bandits.

Matt, you need to raise your rates man!

And also maybe a comment about the $110,000 SunCal (SCC) paid to Progressive Campaigns, Inc. for signature gathering and blocking and withdrawal of the SOAR referendum to place the Zoning Change on the ballot (the one current in front of the City Council)

Also the fact (as of June 30th) that CDPA owed this website (Red County Online) $4,875.

Yeah, "David Michael" is just some reader who just finds this interesting. Do you work for Disney? Or one of the Disney consultants?

At least Jubal discloses his involvement.

I have no ties with either The Walt Disney Company, SOAR or any Disney consultants. I do provide pictures and occasional articles to a few Disney-related websites, which are also not owned or have any ties to the Walt Disney Company.

You can find my work at MiceAge.com and MousePlanet.com currently.

And yes, until I read the original post, I have never bothered to check for campaign statements in regards to this issue. But since Jubal brought up the SOAR Form 460, I thought it would be interesting to see what the other side, CDPA raised and spent its money on.

David Michael:

And your point is....?

You agree Disney spent a huge amount of money on paid circulators.

Then you complain that your side had to provide potential referendum signatories with documentation about what you guys want them to referend.

You guys opened the ballot-box zoning door, and now you're complaining about what's walking through?

It's not a "waiver" for a City Council to place an initiative on the ballot. That's a red herring. City councils do it all the time. Disney spent half-a-million because they don't have the support of a majority of the elected representatives of the voters of Anaheim, not because they admire the initiative petition process.

First off, I am a Theme Park fan and casual reporter, and have disagreed with Disney MANY times.

I have attended City Council meetings regarding this matter in person and watching on the webcast.

I really don't have a side, though if I was a registered voter of the city of Anaheim, I think at present, I would vote to keep the Resort Area for commercial uses. (I am a registered voter in Tustin).

But one point that keeps coming up when I follow this issue is how SunCal is getting preferential treatment in regards to this issue.

From the fact that the initial zoning changes and environmental reports were paid for by the city, instead of the normal route, which is the fact the developer pays. Also, in the majority of cases, the developer is required to submit a definite plan to the zoning commission. As I understand it, no actual plan has been submitted by SunCal for the project.

Then the codifying of the actual zoning change, this is NOT the normal procedure, but a rare exception, and was done by the three city councilpersons specifically to make it harder to circulate the referendum petitions. I know of no other reason why it was done. Maybe someone can educate me on another reason why it was done.

And now, the "Strawberry Field" Initiative should be placed on the ballot by the City Council. For what reason is this initiative necessary or benefits the city of Anaheim?

To me, it just seems like "spite" since SOAR was successful in getting enough signatures for its measures.

Currently the "Strawberry Field" is zoned for parking and farming, and if Disney, the land owners, want to build something, they would have to approach the zoning commission and submit its plan for developing the land, and request approval for the changes. And if the City Council wants to, could review the zoning commission decision. The same as any other project in the area.

Why does the "Strawberry Field" need a special rule?

And as for majorities, what does the majority of the CITIZENS (Registered voters) of Anaheim support?

And also maybe a comment about the $110,000 SunCal (SCC) paid to Progressive Campaigns, Inc. for signature gathering and blocking and withdrawal of the SOAR referendum to place the Zoning Change on the ballot (the one current in front of the City Council)

"Blocking"? You certainly have the Disney spin down well. Th "signature blocking" spin is from Disney/SOAR's "protect your right to vote!" Phase I.

Protect Anaheim hired Progressive Campaigns to ask Anaheim residents to sign a petition thanking Councilmembers Hernandez, Galloway and Kring for standing up to Disney. They were stationed at the same locations as Disney circulators.

Subsequently, our circulators would also provide potential referendum signatories with countervailing facts to what the Disney circulators were saying, and ask those who had already signed to sign a rescission card. Most Americans would consider that to be free speech and discussion -- but apparently Disney sees the presentation of a different view to be "blocking."

Also the fact (as of June 30th) that CDPA owed this website (Red County Online) $4,875.

Protect Anaheim hasn't paid for the blogad, yet.

"Blocking"? You certainly have the Disney spin down well. Th "signature blocking" spin is from Disney/SOAR's "protect your right to vote!" Phase I.

Um, actually, that's how SunCal lists a series of payments on their own Form 460 (p. 6): "Payment to PCI Consultants, Inc. for signature gathering and blocking/withdrawal".

As Biff pointed out, the term Blocking was used on the CDPA Form 460, and is why I used the specific word.

And you mentioned Protect Anaheim, I presume that Protect Anaheim is just another name for CDPA, since it is on the CDPA Form 460 (that never mentioned Project Anaheim to my knowledge) that the debt to Red County is mentioned.

So why is it that whenever someone has a well-researched, reasoned, intelligent viewpoint, you accuse them of working for the Mouse? Has it ever occurred to you that the unwashed masses might actually do our own legwork? Heck, it is even conceivable that not only do we not take info from Disney, they could possibly be getting info from those of us willing to go look for it.

When SunCal cannot argue the case on its own merits, they begin attacking the messengers.

And yes, it was blocking, Matt. How many times were the Police called out because SunCal’s goon squads were physically blocking off petitioners tables, intimidating signature gatherers? That is why the expenses were so high, volunteers were willing to go out to collect signatures, but not comfortable about going alone with those thugs out there. In comparison, show me how many Anaheim residents were on the streets collecting signatures for SunCal. They were overwhelmingly paid petitioners, because locals DO NOT SUPPORT messing with the Resort!

So why is it that whenever someone has a well-researched, reasoned, intelligent viewpoint, you accuse them of working for the Mouse?

I didn't accuse anyone of "working for the Mouse." I was a bit over-combative with David Michael, and for that he has my apology.

When SunCal cannot argue the case on its own merits, they begin attacking the messengers.

Actually, Cynthia, that's been a staple tactic of the Disney/SOAR side, a la the "evil out-of-town developer" attacks.

Heck, it is even conceivable that not only do we not take info from Disney, they could possibly be getting info from those of us willing to go look for it.

Cynthia, I know for a fact Disney/SOAR provides you guys with research and talking points. I'm not saying you don't also do any of your own info gathering, but the stuff you were throwing out here last month about SunCal, for example, was straight out of a package prepared by SOAR.

Wow. My compadres will tell you that nobody ever puts words in this stubborn chick's mouth, certainly not the Mouse. And I am rather offended that you assume they fed me the info from Hoover’s. I posted that to your blog before SOAR printed it.

So…if an Irvine based developer is not an “out of town developer” then who is?

Matt, you used your home address? That was brave. Nice place. Nearly 2,000 square feet at OC prices? You must be very good at blog hosting. I’m impressed.

Cynthia, Cynthia, Cynthia.

Take a breath.

Yes. I like my 40-year old house. We bought it 10 years ago before the market started moving again. Lucky timing.

And that has exactly what to do with anything?

As for the SunCal info, do I need to show you the e-mail from the SOAR consultant, of which you were one of the recipients, to which the SunCal research was attached? And which was sent out prior to you posting it on this blog?

So…if an Irvine based developer is not an “out of town developer” then who is? Maybe a Lake Buena Vista, Florida-based developer?

Disney was in Anaheim before they were in Florida, and they certainly are not seen by locals as "outsiders".

As far as e-mails, I frequently get stuff back in cycles, but I will never convince you that Anaheim residents have not all been brainwashed by a giant corporation. We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Let's go back to your original post, which is what was up for discussion before we got distracted by the idea that all Disney fans are lobomized robots unable to check public records for their own info. You sure push hard on the issue of what Disney has spent, as if that somehow negates the fact that local residents overwhelmingly support the Resort. Look at who has supported SOAR, they/we are all heavily involved in our little pocket neighborhoods. And we are all grateful to Disney for backing us, or we would have been squashed by the spending power of SunCal. But we would have fought without Disney. Can you honestly say that the CPDA would really be fighting so hard without SunCal?

Hi Matt!
I won't rehash all of the prior comments as the reason why SOAR had to spend so much money was only because of Suncal. You really need to get off the issue that this is about Disney. This is a simple case of a developer trying to put housing in an area where it simply does not belong.
I don't know if you read my last post on the Liberal OC, but I did the math to show that over at Riverbend, Suncal got 12 units per acre approved there and that is very intensive land use. I spoke to Councilman Mark Murphy from Orange at length about Suncal and they did a great job at Riverbend. I have no issue with Suncal nor the two companies that they flipped the Del Rio development to build.
But the issue at hand is, do we want 77 units per acre of residential housing in the Anaheim Resort? I know you discounted that total, but I would be happy to do the math again for you using a very conservative figure of 25% of land being used for infrastructure. I came out with 76 units, but the planning commision says that they approved 77 units per acre.

I don't want that area to become another Buena Park where the city allowed housing to be built next to Knotts Berry Farm and when they expanded their rides, the surrounding area was constantly complaining about the noise, traffic and all of these neat rides looking down into their backyards. (Got to wonder what they were doing in their backyards)

This land should be used for the expansion of the resort. Our city is 68 square miles in size. We have plenty of space to put housing of all kinds. If you go to the City of Orange Website you will see their mission statement on affordable housing. Also, not one unit of affordable housing was included in the Del Rio/River Bend Project. Why is that? Oh excuse me, you did say you lived nearby, so maybe that was the reason :) Also, over 10,000 units have been approved for the Platinum Triangle. Not one is affordable. Lori Galloway said "that no one wants affordable housing in their neighborhood" I guess her solution was to put in the Anaheim Resort and hope that no one would notice.

Disclaimer: I do not nor have I ever worked for Disney nor have I ever worked in the Anaheim Resort. I do have one family member that does work in the resort. I receive no compensation except from Social Security. Jubal/aka Matt C does receive compensation from Suncal as he is honest enough to disclose. Maybe we should all start our posts with a disclaimer rather than putting them at the end :)

I have no issue with Suncal nor the two companies that they flipped the Del Rio development to build.

Jim:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of SunCal and the Del Rio development. SunCal is primarily a developer, not homebuilder.

You use the word "flip" as if SunCal swooped in, bought the property and quickly re-sold it like some individual speculator quickly buying and selling houses.

SunCal entitled the site and made it ready for the merchant builder to build the actual houses. That means putting in the infrastructure, etc -- which was no small task considering the absolutely gigantic hole that had to be filled in.

And they did not "rip off" Orange taxpayers, as you alleged in a comment on a different blog.

Also, not one unit of affordable housing was included in the Del Rio/River Bend Project.

That's incorrect, Jim. Several of the attached homes were to be sold as affordable homes.

You really need to get off the issue that this is about Disney.

That would be what they call "ignoring reality." This is very much about Disney, Jim. Disney has donated $1.6 million so far in an effort to gain de facto control of the Resort District, because that would be the practical result of passing the SOAR initiative. No resort district property owner could obtain any kind of zoning adjustment without going through a very expensive citywide election. That gives Disney veto power over other resort district property owners because the Mouse's deep pockets would fund a killer "no" campaign.

And you are comfortable with sealing the current Resort District in concrete FOREVER -- because that is what you are advocating. Not just stopping a single residential project, but freezing the current resort district zoning in place in perpetuity -- regardless of how circumstances change. And the only way any resort district property owner will be able to get any change at all is by asking Disney's permission.

But if you're comfortable with giving that much power over Anaheim to a single corporation, that's your decision.

Gee, I'm sure glad that you cleared up that Suncal is not a builder. I would not have figured that one out in say 55 years? The key word in Del Rio about the affordable homes is "were", so you tell me where they are? When I went over there to talk to the salesman there he thought that they might have a few units at $450,000. I guess by the standards here in the OC that is affordable.

We can all follow the dollars game, but you keep skirting the issue that housing simply does not belong in the resort zone.

Going back to River Bend. Are you telling me Suncal filled in that hole? I think not.
As I said before, I have nothing against that development. Flip simply means that they did what a devoper does. They got the zoning, etc and sold the development off to Centex and Lennar. As you stated and confirmed by Council Murphy, the community strongly supported the development.

In the case of Anaheim, the community does not support the project and lets put this to a vote. We all know that three of council members are being influenced by Suncal, but I'll leave that to another time.

Personally, I would trust Disney long before I would trust anything that Suncal has to spin and belive me, I have seen Suncal and our council spin a lot in the last few months.

You talked about change in the resort. Hey this is not the Roman Empire. Nothing lasts forever. In a hundred years none of us will around.

Jim:

You keep making inaccurate statements about the Del Rio project. You're the one who raised the topic in the first place, so don't accuse me of "skirting the issue."

You're basing your information on a conversation with a Riverbend salesman? Jim, nothing against those guys but they don't know anything about the project and its history -- they just sell houses.

The development agreement provided for an affordable housing component, but I don't remember the exact number.

Who filled the hole, Jim? The Dump Truck Fairy?

The community strongly supported the project BECAUSE SunCal engaged the community and developed a project that responded to community concerns. Previous attempts bu others to develop the same site went nowhere in the face of opposition from the same community. We had people who were officers in a grass roots group that fought those attempts supporting SunCal's plan.

Jim, do you really want to keep arguing with me over a project about which you know virtually nothing, and on which I worked for more than three years?

And finally, spending several years and millions of dollars entitling and turning a giant hole in the ground into a site suitable for homes, a sports part and greenway is not "flipping."

Actually, I waited while the Salesman called the builders main office regarding the last units to be built and they confirmed that NO affordable housing units were being built (by definition) and they were the ones who passed on the $450,000 figure to the salesman. If this amount is affordable to you, then I guess it is. I also spoke with the building department and they also confirmed that no affordable units were in the total of 603 homes. Councilman Mark Murphy also confirmed this and referred me to the City of Orange Website that addressed affordable housing issue as to why they did not push for affordable housing at that site.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I have nothing bad to say about River Bend, nor Suncal, but you keep pushing the idea that I do. My conversation with Councilman Murphy was over a month ago and he gave me basically the same history that you did.

Glad you cleared up who filled up that big hole!

The only difference between you and me is that I am not paid to prostitute myself to Suncal for a few dollars every month.

Ouch!

The only difference between you and me is that I am not paid to prostitute myself to Suncal for a few dollars every month.

I read the comment threads on these Disney/SunCal posts, and one thing is pretty clear. The pro-Disney people are a genuinely mean, nasty lot.

Jubal has always been up front about his relationship with SunCal, and about the fact that he makes a living as a consultant.

Jim, your uncalled for comments (and colony rabble's weird references to the square footage of Jubal's house) reflect pretty poorly on your side.

And Jubal's right that you're the person who keeps bringing up this Del Rio/Riverbend thing. If you don't want to talk about it, talk about something else.

I'm an hourly Disneyland Cast Member, a nice guy and an Attractions Host who loads you into your boat on Pirates of the Caribbean or says the spooky spiel in the stretching room of the Haunted Mansion, and I'll weigh in with some thoughts here.

The "out of town developer" line Jubal has repeatedly mentioned here in regards to SOAR being funded out of Lake Buena Vista, Florida is a bit of a red herring. The bank account Disneyland uses for everything in Anaheim is located out of the massive Walt Disney World administrative complex in.... wait for it.... Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Every Cast Member at Disneyland gets their weekly paycheck from an account with a Lake Buena Vista address. That's all there is to it.

To try and paint Disneyland USA as an "out of town developer" in Anaheim because the bank account is processed through Lake Buena Vista is silly. And that's not a tactic anyone in Orange County would buy into, so I would humbly suggest CPDA drop that tactic as they try to sway voters to their side.

Disneyland is an integral part of the OC community, and will never be considered as an "out of towner".

This thread was quite an enjoyable read. Once again I'm so impressed by the quality of bloggers and quality of information presented. The independent thinking on subjects like this is why this blog is popular. Of course the paid commentary does lose credibility for either side of the issue, but I commend the open manner in which this conflict is disclosed.

It's pretty clear from the petition process success that SunCal has no community support. Other than Matt and the 3 councilmembers, residents seem to maintain strong support for their long-time friend and resident, Disney.

I don't live in Anaheim, but Disney has been the best supporter of community issues and causes year after year. They have supported local food bank and emergency housing organizations for decades. Without their continued support Orange County would not be able to help itself help so many.

The fact that Disney would step up to the plate and fight to protect the resort district is admirable. Disney is not unlike voters that stay on the sidelines until elected officials do something so stupid you cannot remain quiet. And yes, in todays political climate "getting involved" means re$ource$.

Thank you David Michael for your time in researching the campaign reports. Keep up the good work!

There are some nasty mice:
Nasty! You have not seen nasty. That will be later when I address the donations made by Suncal, et al to three of our council members.

Nasty was those blockers that Suncal hired to prevent the citizens of Anaheim from obtaining the signatures for the referendum to overturn the council vote. This is first time in 30 years that this has happened. I will concede that the blockers were the ones that Disney first hired to obtain signatures for the initiative, so when the referendum started, those problem signature gathers were dumped for another firm that had higher hiring standards.

If you would also go back to an earlier post, you will see that I have always acknowledged that Jubal is upfront with his relationship with Suncal.

Not only is the community strongly against Suncal putting in housing at this location, but I have yet to speak to a cast member or ex cast member that supports housing there.

Also, putting an end to River Bend, I have said nothing but good things about the project. It was only used to show that out of 603 homes there, none are designated affordable. The density there is 12 units per acre and if you drive over there you will see how close the homes are. You can call the building dept. in Orange to confirm this. The Suncal Project will have at least 76 units per acre which is a density six times greater than River Bend. I wonder how high up they have to go to develop this, but of course no site plan was ever submit to justify the zoning change, so no one really knows what Suncal is proposing.

Jubal is the one that seems to make an issue of River Bend because he worked on the project. I don't see him denying ot admitting that he or his company was paid for his work. I'm hoping that he wasn't and did it for his neighborhood. I'm only using River Bend as a comparison for what they are supposedly planning in Anaheim, which of course is anybodys guess.

Glad to see that Westsider put the "out of town" to rest for SOAR & the Anaheim Resort.

The company that sent it to me is going to replace the rotten ones. We can do the same thing with the city council if they continue to reprent Suncal rather than the voters of Anaheim.

Jim, thanks for reminding me about the actual density of the SunCal project. I had gotten so amazed reading the childishly irrelevant back and forth spin that I had forgotten the best reason for pulling the plug on the SunCal zone change - the density it promises to some future developer.

I wonder (aloud) if the EIR (a Program Level EIR? - must be since there's no actual project yet) adequately addressed unmitigatable impacts, and how much of a charade the usual "findings of overriding consideration" were.

I did not mean to get personal over Matt’s square footage, that was just my way of pointing out that I can pull together my own research without Disney feeding me facts. I do not see how that was nasty. Nasty is Lucille Kring stating that “80% of the information in the SOAR material is flat inaccurate”, and then refusing to actually detail what was inaccurate. Nasty is Bob Hernandez jumping in my face during a non-profit event, and insisting that “the days of single family homes in Anaheim are over”, including my own historic neighborhood, which some of the Council has “promised” to redevelop for affordable housing. Since our area is completely built out, how do you think they are going to do that? By demolishing bungalows? Nasty is the SunCal folks convincing the working poor who do genuinely need a compassionate answer to their housing issues, that they will actually be helped by this project. Nobody has bothered to tell them that not only will they not be able to afford the condos SunCal wants the entitlements for, but the units will result in a NET LOSS for affordable housing in Anaheim. No, this is not going to help them, and the loss of taxes on that parcel mean that we will all lose services in the end. Nasty is the density approved equates to the “projects” of back east that we are now tearing down as the failed social experiments that they were. But I have not seen SOAR do anything nasty.

redperegrine, there was NO EIR. How they can do that under CEQA is beyond me, but then our Council sees themselves as above the rules anymore.

If that's true then the council had to make the necessary findings for a Negative Declaration, some of which may have addressed mitigation measures - or may not have if the council had made findings to the effect that there were no significant impacts at all. Either Neg Dec scenario would be pretty hard to swallow - without the requisite lubricant.

The only difference between you and me is that I am not paid to prostitute myself to SunCal for a few dollars every month.

Ouch!

Jim:

I'm going to give you a first and last warning, so pay attention:

I allow an open forum on these comments. I don't prevent Mouseheads like you from coming here and speaking your piece.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are somehow, miraculously ignorant of the rules of conduct in the comments section, which I find myself repeating every few days:

1) No profanity or obscenity

2) No personal attacks or gossip.

You have already managed to break Rule 2 with the above comment, which just makes you look like a vicious punk.

Now you've been warned. Do it again and you'll be banned.

And if you're going to call earning a living s a public affairs consultant "prostituting yourself," you might want to ask the consulting team at Disney/SOAR how they feel about that because your description applies to them, as well.

In other words, if you want to participate in the comment here, act like a grown up.

My, My, Touchy are we. No profanity was used and the attacks by your supporters are no more vicious than mine.

I have no problem with what you do and you make it very clear whom you represent and you are indeed fair, but I just wanted to yank your chain to see how you would respond. Maybe if you clamp down on some of the comments by other, we will also.

If you want to discuss land use planning, as that is my specialty, I will be happy to argue the merits of the Suncal Project on that level alone.

Now that I got the Lake Buena Vista bank account red herring off my chest, I have another bit of feedback for the CPDA folks. Their Protect Anaheim website linked to at the top of this page has a glaring nomenclature error. The CPDA website continually refers to the "Disney Corporation". There is no such thing as a "Disney Corporation".

There is, however, such a thing as The Walt Disney Company. That's the company that owns Disneyland and is behind the SOAR campaign. Disney has never been a "corporation". Prior to calling themselves The Walt Disney Company, the organization was referred to as Walt Disney Productions from the time Walt built Disneyland up until the mid 1980's. At no time has it ever been called "Disney Corporation", and the word corporation has never been used in the title.

It would benefit the CPDA cause if they got the details right on their website and associated materials. We have a saying at Disneyland as we get the park ready for the day every morning... "The magic is in the details". As it stands now, the CPDA website has missed the details and is lacking the magic.

If Jubal or someone here could pass that on to the webmaster for the CPDA site, it might be of benefit to them.

Jim, you said:

"If you want to discuss land use planning, as that is my specialty, I will be happy to argue the merits of the Suncal Project on that level alone."

Why don't you do that and leave the effluence of spleen to the people who are hired to dish it out? I, for one, would welcome a "land use planning" debate. Since you claim this is yor specialty, let's talk about it - and skip the rotten fruit metaphors.

The first issue seems to be about CEQA compliance - State law, in fact. If no EIR was prepared and circulated, the obvious question is why not? How could the City get by on a mere Negative Declaration on the most dense project ever proposed in Anaheim?

I understand THAT is why Disney is suing the City. It is not a petty slap back from a giant corporation upset because they cannot run the City. Our City Council appears in violation of CEQA, and the largest employer in the City, potentially impacted by the loss of TOT related to the zoning change, is in the right to demand an EIR. I have yet to hear a reason for why Council thought it was OK to do this without an EIR, as it was long before I became interested, but I would love to hear what their reasoning was. Anyone recall that far back?

My, My, Touchy are we. No profanity was used and the attacks by your supporters are no more vicious than mine.

I have no problem with what you do and you make it very clear whom you represent and you are indeed fair, but I just wanted to yank your chain to see how you would respond. Maybe if you clamp down on some of the comments by other, we will also.

Jim:

Pay attention. I'll use small words.

I did not say you used bad words. I just told you what the rules were in case you did not know what they were.

I don't care what you think of what other people say elsewhere. The comments section has rules. Abide by them.

Yank your chains elsewhere, and don't abuse my hospitality.

To try and paint Disneyland USA as an "out of town developer" in Anaheim because the bank account is processed through Lake Buena Vista is silly. And that's not a tactic anyone in Orange County would buy into, so I would humbly suggest CPDA drop that tactic as they try to sway voters to their side.

Westsider:

Disney/SOAR characterizes SunCal as an "out-of-town" developer because their corporate headquarters are in Irvine.

By that standard, Disney is an out-of-town company because it's headquarters is in Burbank -- which wasn't in Anaheim, last time I checked.

Disney is a international company with facilities and operations all over the globe. It has a large facility -- Disneyland -- in Anaheim. That doesn't make it an Anaheim company, any more than Disneyworld makes it an Orlando company.

I did not mean to get personal over Matt’s square footage, that was just my way of pointing out that I can pull together my own research without Disney feeding me facts. I do not see how that was nasty.

Are you guys for real? Cynthia, you claimed over and over again that you don't receive research from SOAR. I inform you I have proof-in-hand that that isn't true. Then you come back with some creepy comment about how you checked out the square footage of my house along with a snide remark about how I must be doing well to afford my house.

Again, Cynthia, that's just creepy. Fort someone who complains about "attacking the messenger" you and some of your cohorts certainly do a lot of it.

Dave, Sorry about the fruit analogy, but you are correct and have hit the nail on the head with your question. How indeed, did the city manage manage to skirt that requirement.

Your question is one of many that I myself have regarding the actions of not only our city council but of our planning staff. From what I have heard by attending the council meetings and watching online, the land was originally zoned for 2,000 hotel rooms. Because, the council or planning staff declared that this zoning was the equivalent of 1500 homes at that location, which we both know is like comparing an apple to an orange (Sorry about the fruit analogy).

I suspect that the city may have used article 3, 15043 b of CEQA as their excuse to waive the EIR on that location and to as you say, made a negative declaration on the development. My father-in-law and brother-in-law are developers in N. Californa and N. Nevada and they thought that it was highly unusual that any city would approve a zoning change not only without an EIR, but without any site plan or project that would justify such a zoning change. What we have here is something that really needs to be investigated at a higher level and hopefully the Disney lawsuit will bring out how three of our council members have possibly violated state law. This can be a grey area as cities under CEQA do have some latitude in this matter, the question is have they exceed this authority and I suspect that you belive as I do that the city has in fact exceed their authority to make such a negative declaration for this project of 76 to 77 units per acre and equating that with 2000 hotel rooms which will not generate the need for additional housing, police, and other infrastructure requirements that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers of Anaheim.

I have to question the wisdom of our planning department in even supporting this development. Overall, I am not impressed with that department. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Broadway where it crosses the Metrolink tracks just East of downtown. They are putting in some houses which have rooms that are about 20 feet from the tracks. Granted they have put in a tall block wall, but if a train jumps the tracks at that location, those homes are toast and when that train goes by, those homes will be rockin and rollin not to mention the noise generated by the metrolink trains. The first train goes by that location at 4:45 in the morning. Sure hope those people are early risers! There be a total of 20 trains going by those homes during the day (10 each way) and I'm not sure if Amtrack also uses those tracks. Those homes should never have built at that location, but someone influenced someone to get those homes approved.

As you may have noticed, I tried not to mention Suncal or Disney as this really not about them, but is strictly about putting housing where it does not belong and I suspect that an EIR would go against the developer.
I don't think any of us that are homeowners (Matt, included) would be happy if the city approved a multi-story hotel backing up to our property. In reality, the reverse of this is what is happening here. Two multi-story hotels already back up to the location and our council in its wisdom wants to put homes at that location?

Personal note
As my background is more in land use and planning, I don't profess to be a zoning expert. When I went to UCR, there was no urban planning major, so the closest field was in the earth sciences. I even spent two months in Columbia doing research for a paper on INCORA which was their Agrarian Land Reform Institute. While in Grad school I worked for a company in Los Angeles that did the feasibility study for a place called Cancun and the M. I learned how to do feasility studies while I was there and worked for several LA Builders doing feasibility studies. One of those was for the condos bordering the Palm Springs Municipal Golf Course and I did studies from San Francisco to Palm Springs. I also taught a couple of years at LA City College. Most of my classmates did go into urban planning or other city agencies such as rapid transit, but I chose not to as there is too much politics working for a city.

I think everyone that blogs should read
S. I. Hayakawa's "Language in Thought and Action" Granted the guy was a Republican Senator from California, but foremost he was an English Professor. I would pay special attention to the section on
"Labels" and "Glittering Generalities" I don't know if this book is still required reading, but it should be.

Dave,Please bring up some more questions regarding this deveopment. Better yet, how about going to the council meeting yourself and asking why they waived the EIR.

Jim, although I have a pretty low opinion of municipal planning departments in general, I think we have to concede the difficulty they face when a council majority presents a policy decision to go in a certain direction. The supposed professionalism of these people depends upon some kind of objective standard of expertise that comes to naught when confronted with a council majority.

That being said, it's still a little baffling to me that anybody on a professional planning staff thought they could get away with a Negative Declaration on this thing since it would obviously impact land use, government services, and transportation and circulation, just to name three CEQA categories.

BTW, I moved to Anaheim a few years ago and have stayed out of municipal issues. I have enough to contend with down at the County Hall of Admin.

PS Thanks for the reminder of Hiyakawa. I'll try to get a copy.

Matt,
In a small word: OK

I think that you are doing a good job, but are just working the wrong side of the issue. I have no problem with Suncal or yourself. I did not mean to "label" you in any negative context other than the fact that you are paid to do what you do and nothing is wrong with that and your website is a good source of local issues that more of us should pay attention to. Our actions speak for themselves so I don't mind being labeled as Pro-Disney and I don't think that is bad anymore than you being labeled as Pro-Suncal.

Our country has only three unique areas such as the Anaheim Resort. The resort being the first, The Mall of America being the second, and WDW the third. These three zones are each unique in their own way and comparing them would be a stretch. These are all international resort destinations that must be protected. The Anaheim Resort is probably the most fragile of the three zones as improper zoning can have adverse effects on the future of the resort zone and we must protect the zone for future expansion. This is not a problem at WDW as you made a point of.

When my letter was published in the OC register you made a point of saying that there would not be 77 units per acre at the Haster-Katella Location. Do you still stand by that? If you do, give me the percentage of land that Suncal would use for infrastucture at that location and I will go over the math with everyone as you seemed to question the number but did not give your own figure. I am of course talking about net units per acre, not gross units per acre. According to the city, the total size of the project is 26.3 acres.

Matt,

I pulled up the info linked to the web address someone else posted, in an effort to show I am perfectly capable of finding information without Disney. If I wanted to be creepy I would have posted the address itself, but it is never my intent to be malicious, or to disrupt someone’s home life. You used a home address to create a web site for someone I disagree with, and I found the address. Nothing creepy about it, just recognize that someone other than Disney can do a web search.

Of course I get the same email blasts that all SOAR supporters do, as you have seen by intercepting our e-mail (you are good at your job) Just because I was later included in the e-mail loop does not mean that I did not have the Hoover’s info first. I do research for a living, and I share anything I find with a group I support. Some they use, some they don’t use. I am sure that you find info, pass it on, and later get it back, sanitized into usable talking points. The difference is that you are paid for it, and I am losing billable hours to fight for the tax base and zoning integrity of my hometown. That does not make either of us evil. Let’s play nice with the other children. Oddly enough, people who know us both tell me that you and I would likely get along if not for the SunCal fight.

In the end, it is a moot point. The info found on Hoover’s and public records still points to SunCal being a business I do not want to deal with in Anaheim. Let’s stop shifting the discussion away from the relevant facts like density and appropriate development standards. SunCal’s position on this issue is incompatible with the Resort District Specific Plan that was developed over a decade ago, and has been wildly successful at revitalizing an area from a blighted dump to the “economic engine” of Anaheim. (I hate that phrase). For every two cops patrolling my streets, tourists gladly pay for one, and I am not willing to hand that over to Frank Elfend. The Council majority is no longer operating from a position of logic or reason, trying to negotiate the best interests of the community. Those three are now operating out of anger, and exacting their petty revenge against Disney, and the citizens who stand in defiance of Council’s misguided, and possibly illegal, decision to dramatically alter the zoning of a successful area, without documentation of the impacts likely to result from that decision. We need to stick to those issues, and stop sniping at each other. And I hope my editor-husband never reads these blogs, or I will never hear the end of it for my poor grammar, as I tend to ramble when I get worked up. I’ll pick up a copy of the book Jim referenced.

For the record, Matt, I do appreciate that you let us discuss all sides of the issues here. Thank you for letting us play in your sand box.

The development mentioned earlier at Broadway and the train tracks is a Mercy Housing project, it is 100% affordable, and I sat on the focus group for that. I am not anti-affordable housing, it just needs to be appropriately sited with schools and services that can support residents. It is a good project, and the people there are no more at risk from the train jumping the tracks than the residents on the other side of the tracks in the single-family homes. In fact, there are carports between the units and the tracks. I would not want to live next to the tracks, but then on Vintage Lane we have historic homes worth $1 million at the same proximity, so each to his own. As far as the Planning Staff, they do as Council directs them. I understand City Hall is a VERY tense place to work right now, employees do their jobs as ordered, and their personal opinions are not allowed to factor into what they do or how they do it. Unfortunately, if Council keeps putting their staff into this predicament, I suspect we will start seeing the turnover of some talented staff, and that will be a shame to Anaheim. We have good people on staff, and many are not happy with the way they are forced to do their jobs anymore. I would prefer to see the contentious Council members leave and let staff do the jobs they are trained to do, without the political motivation toying with zoning and land use studies. Anaheim is heading for trouble if we continue to let politics and campaign donations drive our land use.

did not mean to "label" you in any negative context other than the fact that you are paid to do what you do and nothing is wrong with that...

Jim: You did mean to label me negatively. I'm hard pressed to think of a positive context for "prostituting."

I get the impression you and other Disney folks think that I only support SunCal's position because I'm a SunCal consultant. I'd been aware of the issue for at least a year prior to joining the SunCal consulting team on this project, and had always felt SunCal's position to be perfectly reasonable and in line with the philosophy of flexible zoning that had heretofore reigned in Anaheim since 2002. My opinions on this issue would be the same if I were not a SunCal consultant. I learned long ago that I am not very effective advocating of defending things I don't believe in, and so I avoid doing so.

Anaheim is heading for trouble if we continue to let politics and campaign donations drive our land use.

A strange sentiment coming from someone supporting Disney/SOAR's $1.6 million (and counting) political campaign drive to control land use decisions in the Resort District.

Cynthia & David:
Sorry to use those homes off Broadway as a planning example where homes should not be built. I am glad that they are affordable, but we do need to do more for all the people who want to live in Anaheim. As you said, I would also not prefer to live next to those tracks, but people buy homes next to airports too.

Living here is not necessarily an entitlement, but a lot of people live here because they want to live close to where they work. Housing is just not an Anaheim problem, it is more like a National Disgrace.

Yes, I can imagine what the planning staff has to put up with having to justify not having an EIR which I'm sure was influenced by some of our council members. It's a shame that cities don't have the checks and balances that are found at the federal level even though even those can be influenced though appointment. Basically the SOAR referendum is part of the check and balance procedure. It exists so the people of Anaheim can either agree or disagree with the council vote and I have yet to meet anyone who admits to supporting the project.

I hope you all pick up a copy of S.I. Hayakawa's book. It was a real eye opener for me in understanding in how language is used to shape opinions and how to avoid labeling people or groups. We all do it, but we need to realize that we are doing it.

I'm sure Matt knows that a lot of the information out there is available to anyone with the ability and time to find it.
I love to search the donation disclosures. You really can see why certain council members vote the way they do. By the way, have you all gotten a copy of the LA times story from December 22, 1991. It was a very long article on Frank Elfund and his business partner Carmine Morinello. The title of that article was: Lobbyist Cultivate Ties to Anaheim Politicians Government: The two bring hefty sums to current council members campaigns. I can't post a copy as you have to go to the LA Times Web Site and purchase it and a condition is that it is for your own personal use.

I know that a lot of us will be at City Hall to encourage the council to schedule the referendum. If they don't, they might be violating the state election code? Also, if the Council votes to give Suncal a Freebie and put an initative on the ballot with going through the expense that we did to collect signatures. There will be nothing tranparent that they could hide behind to show whom they really reprsent.

I'm thinking of starting a pool as to how many times Bob Hernandez uses the word Transparency at the next council meeting. Gotta love the guy. He is so predictable.
Oh and all proceeds will be donated to SOAR.

Jubal,
You need to get a good unabridged dictionary. It was probably a poor choice of words. Anyway, thank you for clearing up your postion on the issue. I have more respect for someone who actually believes what they are doing is right than someone who is paid to believe it.

My prediction is that this mess is only going to get nastier but hopefully both sides can present their arguments and let the voters decide without the finger pointing and name calling.

It was probably a poor choice of words.

That's like a husband telling his wife she's fat and ugly, and then saying it was a poor choice of words.

Whatever.

Just keep it clean, abide by the simple comments sections rules and everything will be jake.

I can handle that. Hopefully maybe we can both put our opinions out without the name calling. Of course calling me vicious is probably a little stetch of your own rules, but probably justified.

Why on earth are we spending a perfectly good Saturday doing this? We need to get lives. Sadly, I predict many more Saturdays spent in frustrating debate after Tuesday’s decision. Methinks those three are not going to get any more reasonable.

"A strange sentiment coming from someone supporting Disney/SOAR's $1.6 million (and counting) political campaign drive to control land use decisions in the Resort District."

SOAR is not spending $1.6 million (and counting) to control land use. They are spending it to DEFEND a land use that the rest of the community agreed to over a decade ago. That includes a lot of mom and pop shops who cannot afford to hire political consultants, who depend on their tourism business. We all agreed to that land use long before SOAR spent this money. It is SunCal, trying to change the zoning, who wants to control our land use. We have seen what happens to quality of life and property values when politicians begin redeveloping a city lot by lot in what amounts to spot zoning. I am grateful that my corporate neighbor is willing to spend the money to defend our zoning, because I do not have it. Of course Disney has a lot to lose. They put their checkbook on the line (no matter what city their bank is based in) to back those bonds, and if we keep pulling Resort lots off line, Disney gets stuck paying off the bonds that all Resort businesses are supposed to be sharing in. That is not fair, and it is not the deal Dudley Frank agreed to when the Resort went in.

Emotional example: When we bought our Money Pit, it was a mess (still is much of the time) and many of the neighbors helped us with salvage pieces, etc. in the belief they were helping a family restore a turn of the century gem. Now imagine if, after all that, I turn the house into a tea parlor and bed and breakfast (which it would be GREAT for) and cause parking problems and noise, etc for those people who just helped me. Some would justify that as my right to use my property for the highest profit. But I would be a bad neighbor, and the neighborhood would be justified in being angry with me. This is no different, it is just on a much larger scale.

Dudley Frank had the chance to opt out of the Resort. Instead, he asked to be included in it when the Resort was formed. The numbers Disney agreed to were based on bond repayment for all of those lots, and we do them a disservice to let parcels bail on them now, after enjoying the revitalization that those bonds brought in improving the area. Matt, you seem like a stand up guy, folks I know speak well of you. I do not understand how you can condone businesses breaking their promises to their neighbors. How can you want to help them do that?

Glad to see this get back on track...

IMHO, the only important thing about where Jubal lives, along with anyone else on this thread... Do you live in the city of Anaheim, and are you a registered voter? That is info directly related to this issue. Based on what I have read, Jubal is not a registered voter in the city of Anaheim, which is no big deal. (I have already stated I am registered in the city of Tustin).

But let's go back to the original post, Disney has donated the VAST majority of money that SOAR has spent, and out of the $1.6 million, over $500,000 was used to gather signatures (about a third of the money spent. It works out to about $10 per signature based on the info I know (over 20,000 for the referendum, and around 30,000 for the initiative.)

And a lot of that expense was due to the actions that CDPA took, based on this OCR news article from May 21st.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/anaheimhills/article_1701973.php

>>Since last month, circulators from both sides have been collecting signatures all over town – at grocery stores, post offices and public events. Recorded voice messages and mailers went out. Police were called a few times when confrontations broke out, mainly when SOAR circulators complained that the other side was blocking them.

The SunCal-funded group, Committee to Protect and Defend Anaheim, put up tables with posters stating, "Stop the Disney Take Over." Residents representing about 18,000 households signed support letters and mailers.

About 100 SOAR volunteers helped out, including at three picnics over the weekend. On a daily basis, circulators were paid between $5 and $10 per signature at six to 12 stations, said Annette McCluskey, SOAR spokeswoman. Higher pay was given when petitioners competed with SunCal's circulators, who got an undisclosed amount.

Now on the other hand, the VAST majority of funding for CDPA has been from SunCal, based on what I have read, it is over $400,000 in cash, and a $100,000 loan, which I presume will be converted into a donation, as I don't see the money coming from another source. So that is around $500,000 spent, and out of that $110,000 was paid for signature gathering and the "blocking/withdrawal" of the SOAR petitioners. Over 20% of the budget, and the only "official" signatures they got were about 3,300 rescission cards based on the same OCR article...

>>By filing the papers, the coalition prevented the SunCal-funded group from turning in almost 1,300 cards that residents signed over the weekend to withdraw their signatures from the referendum petition.

The clerk's office is forbidden from accepting such cards once signatures are filed, City Clerk Linda Nguyen said. About 2,000 rescission cards were turned in on time.

So that is over $30 a signature. (I am not counting how many signatures CDPA got on their support the council actions letters, as they were non-binding, and that anyone could sign the letters, it wasn't important if you were a registered voter of Anaheim.)

That is a LOT of money spent on both sides.

And talking about money and what's next.

This upcoming Tuesday, the Anaheim City Council will once again have the referendum on the agenda (Item #54).

And once again, they have three basic choices.

They could once again postpone the decision, but the fact remains, only if the matter goes to the ballot, and that the registered voters in the election side in the majority with the council's decision, will the actual zoning change be official. Currently it is not law, since the required amount of signatures were gathered and submitted with the 30 day required period.

I hope the council won't take that action, but it is an option.

Then they have two other options, the first is to rescind the decision. What does this do? it prevents the same basic matter to appear in front of the city council for a period of one year, after which, the council can once again bring up the same exact matter if they choose. If they decide to do this, there are some benefits, it stops the expenses of the city on the project, plus it wouldn't require any additional monies from Disney and SunCal to be spent on campaigning for the measure being placed in on the ballot, and based on the amount both sides have already spent, will be a significant amount by both sides. I also presume that the current lawsuit about the Enviromental Reports that were not done would be moot, and the costs to the city in legal fees would stop. It will also save the citizens for being placed in a "War" between the two sides. And IF the polls clearly show that the Zoning Change would be repealed by the citizens of Anaheim, this is the decision that makes sense to me (my personal opinion), if there is a large gap in the polls (and I have no idea what numbers have shown up, but I presume that both CDPA and SOAR have taken some from registered voters in Anaheim and check where they stand on the matter). On the other hand, if it is close, or that the registered voters of Anaheim are deciding to agree with the majority of the council, then this option doesn't make sense.

And the option, that IMHO will take place, is that the council will decide 3-2 to place the referendum on the ballot of the citizens of Anaheim to decide the matter.

And then there is a second issue if the council decides to place the matter on the ballot. And that is WHEN?

The most obvious options are to place it on one of the three upcoming scheduled elections in February, June and November of 2008, though they can decide to have a special election on any date 3 months (88 days) from the date the motion to place it on the ballot is passed by the city council, but has to be placed on the ballot no later than the November election.

Since the matter is in limbo, IMHO an earlier ballot, such as February makes the most sense, as it will finally end the issue one way or the other, and also should keep the expenses on both sides (SOAR/CDPA) to the minimum.

Now, another issue is Tax Dollars and how much it will cost the city to have an election. The city staff has stated that a special election on its own date is close $500,000 in costs, and I hope the city council doesn't make that decision.

If they have the measure voted on as part of the February or June scheduled elections, then the cost is around $250,000, maybe a bit less.

And if they wait until November and the General Election, the cost should be less than $10,000.

On the other hand, if they decide to place the measure on the November ballot, then the issue will be in limbo for over a year, and it also makes it easier to place the "Strawberry Field" initiative, if the council decided to place it directly on the ballot, or if CDPA goes out and gathers the required signatures a chance to place it on the same ballot as the SOAR measure(s).

And once again, IMHO, I think that the Strawberry Field measure is basically on the ballot for "Spite" and to confuse the issue in the eyes of the voters if all the measures are on the same ballot.

(And once again, I am asking for what reason is this initiative necessary or benefits the city of Anaheim and its citizens? Why does the "Strawberry Field" need a special rule?)

Should be interesting Council meeting Tuesday night.

Daved, good sumnmary. One note on the recisssion cards. The people that got the signatures on the cards got a fixed dollar amount for each signature they obtained. The spiel was. "Please sign this card to support affordable housing" Nothing more or less. There was no requirement that the person that signed the card was even a resident or voter. At the location I was at, most of those that signed were not even in this country legally. Out of the 2,000 cards supposedly turned in I would suspect that barely 10% were even valid. Also, the group behind this is the company that Disney fired because of the complaints on how they were obtaining signatures on the initiative. Disney hires another company and Suncal rushes out and hires the same company that Disney fired. Also, there had to be an Anaheim Resident witness each signature for the referendum and this was not a requirement for the recission card gatherers.

Since Suncal has not bought the land and is paying for an option to buy, they would be smart to walk away. I'm sure that they have taken a poll and found that they have very little support in the community, but why should they care when they have three of our council members in their hip pocket.

To see how Disneyland changed Anaheim from 1955 to 1960, check out this web site.
http://www.yesterland.com/aerial1955and1960.html.

First off, Jim, I know Werner Weiss, the Curator of Yesterland. He is currently associated with one of the websites I do work for, MiceAge.com. He does great work, and has some great retro photos and info.

And thanks for the comments about the rescission cards, one of the main reasons I posted the last post (and the info I am going to post in this one) is to see if I got the info right, and am I misunderstand one or more points. Most of my info comes from news articles, attending and watching the City Council meetings, and reading info from the SOAR website, and the CDPA websites, plus I have been reading Jubal posts here at the OC Blog.

A couple of more observations.

First off, I felt that all the unions were supporting Ms. Galloway and the SunCal project, based on what I saw at the City Council and Ms. Galloway's comments. One point that was brought out early was the fact that one of the main supports of Ms. Galloway when she ran for the city council seat was the unions.

But since the zoning changed passed 3-2, the building trade unions and the AFL/CIO has come out in favor of SOAR and not approving the zoning change. I presume that both sides talked to the unions to get their support, and the building unions decided they would prefer to keep the zoning for the resort area, and the reason why is that more high level jobs (such as steel work) would be created with commercial projects instead of residential housing.

Also, that not all the low-cost housing advocates are backing SunCal and the city council on the Mobile Home land.

From the LA Times dated July 9th, 2007

http://www.piconetwork.org/media-coverage/2007-07-09-anaheim-s-low-cost-housing-issue-expands.pdf

>>Religious coalition leaders say they are staying out of the high-profile fight in the Resort District, partly because some members have sided with Disney and others don't believe the entertainment giant can be beaten in the courts or at the ballot box.

And with the splitting of groups that most would expect to support the low-cost housing project, it doesn't look good for the SunCal project.

So with this info, should the City Council place the measure on the ballot, or should they realize that there is not a highly likelihood (once again, based on secondary knowledge) of the zoning change getting enough votes to be allowed to continue and just save everyone time, money and hassle?

I am not sure, as I am one in favor of letting the voters decide an issue as hotly contested as this issue is. But on the other hand, if it is clear that the issue is so lopsided that it has no real chance of the zoning change being approved by the voters, why waste all the time and effort of everyone?

Maybe some folks can make the info clearer and more understandable to everyone (aka both sides)....

David:
You are correct about the Trade Unions as well as the Teamsters supporting SOAR. I think that some of the housing groups are starting to realize that the location is not conducive to housing. I have always said that the Anaheim Resort should be a place to take your family, not raise them.

I read Mice Age about once a week to see if they have come up with anything interesting.
I think some their articles on the problems of retaining employees at Disneyland and how they don't understand that it is costing them more money to keep training new people when they quit in three months because many of the low level supervisors don't really know how to do their jobs more or less be supervisors. I think it was in Feb. or around that time that I read it and I'm can't remember if it was Al Lutz that wrote the article. I'm the first person to agree that Disney is not perfect, but compared to Knotts Berry Farm and the Cedar Farm Gang that is letting the Ghost Town fall down in the hopes of putting up one more coaster, Disney is far superior in both pay and working conditions.

Focus groups of high turn-out voters likely to vote in a special election or primary show 70% and higher support preserving the Resort zoning for Resort uses. So yes, an election is a monumental waste of time and resources. SOAR has shared some great info on how much an election would cost and what that equates to in services lost to the citizens of Anaheim, and it is pretty dramatic. On the other hand, having the Resort zoning overwhelmingly supported by a vote of the people would put this to rest forever. Voter support of the Resort would also bolster the recall that is sure to follow if those three put the SunCal initiative on the ballot without collecting signatures. I keep hoping Lucille Kring does not jump on the death wagon Hernandez and Galloway are already on, I supported Lucille, I do not want to see her tossed from an office she worked so hard for, and I especially do not want to go through any more of the hate campaigns we are already enduring. But if those three support SunCal rather than the Anaheim residents that put them in office, we will toss them. Nobody wins as things stand, and Anaheim is becoming a truly unpleasant place to be anymore.

I presume that both sides talked to the unions to get their support, and the building unions decided they would prefer to keep the zoning for the resort area, and the reason why is that more high level jobs (such as steel work) would be created with commercial projects instead of residential housing.

Man, you are one naive guy.

Do you honestly think the building trades unions are with SOAR because their concerned with "proper zoning"?

I watched them on the council webcast, and they could barely articulate the issue. It was obvious they were given talking points and sent up.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made a deal with Disney that all labor on a third park will be union labor.

Union labor to build the third park, or to operate it?

Just so folks know, almost EVERYONE you encounter in Disneyland or California Adventure is Union. Ride operators, churro vendors, busboys, chefs, custodians, shop clerks, parade characters, etc. Everyone from the trombonist in the Disneyland Marching Band to the pretty hostess perched on the back of your StorybookLand boat pointing out the sights, they are all union dues paying members.

About the only front line Cast Members I can think of who do not belong to a union are the Tour Guides leading guided tours around the Parks and Guest Relations Hosts/Hostesses working the info booths and guest service desks. (But they have a pay scale much higher than most other unionized operations departments) Even many of the "supervisors" you see in the park in a shirt and tie and earpiece are still hourly employees who pay union dues to their respective bargaining group. The giveaway is the color of their ID card hanging on their belt; yellow ID means hourly and most likely union dues paying member, blue ID means salaried management.

Obviously, the salaried folks working in the park or back in the administration building aren't union. But even many of those folks started as hourly Cast Members and paid union dues for years before they moved into Disneyland management.

Disney Parks in Anaheim are heavily unionized, and always have been.

And lets talk about what the Walt Disney Company is planning for the future in Anaheim, CA.

First off, what I am talking about is NOT official and Disney has not made any official announcements or press releases on the info yet, but I will explain where the info comes from.

First off, the big news is that Disney will spend about $1.2 billion over 10 years to enhance and expand Disney's California Adventure (DCA). This info comes from employees that work for WDI (Walt Disney Imagineering) who are now working on the future plans. The Board of Directors of The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) did approve this expense in the last couple of months, and has been reported by many Disney Insiders on the Internet. While some of the money will be for new attractions and lands, including a Carsland being built of the current Timon Parking Lot, a lot of the money will be used to fix issues in the current park, including enhancing theming and trying to make the park more "Disney like".

Also in the works is an expansion of the Grand Californian Hotel (GCH), for Timeshare-like units sold by Disney's Vacation Club (DVC). This comes from Building Permits being filed with the City of Anaheim for a new model to be built near the current model located on the edge of the Simba Parking Lot behind the Paradise Pier Hotel, and the fact that Disney has asked to remove part of the southern most part of the GCH in another building permit (there have been 3 filed recently, one for the Simba lot (which has an official address of Walnut) and 2 for the GCH. The rumored plans has a few hundred rooms to be built on the south edge of the GCH where the current Valet parking lot and a grass field is on the edge of DCA.

Those are clearly happening (and of course, things could change, such as Disney not getting enough interest in their DVC sales and cancelling the project, or revising the DCA expansion). On the other hand, John Lassiter has a lot of power right now, and is looked at as the Wonder Person, who started at Disney, then moved to Pixar, and then rejoined the company when they merged. John has hired new people, including a senior person from WDI, who retired and started his own firm around 15 years ago, Bob Weis. He was re-hired by John specifically to oversee the expansion and improvement of DCA. (FYI, in the Disney culture, using first names is very common).

And more is coming, I wish I could say more (but can't), but Disney is planning even more investments in Anaheim over the next few years, and announcements will be soon.

When and how these projects will be announced will be partially based on what happens at the City Council and what measures are placed on the ballot at their timing. But Disney does have a lot "up their sleeves" and will be looking to show the citizens of Anaheim they are serious about the Anaheim Resort Area and will be investing a lot of money to help bring in customers to their parks and hotels, but also to non-Disney businesses in the Resort Area. All of which will bring in additional tax revenue to the city.

And I am pretty sure that most, if not all of the plans would have happened even without the zoning issue. Though I think some projects have been moved up the time table to help the SOAR folks campaign to keep the entire Resort Area zoned for commercial and tourism based functions.

All the info above has been on the Internet, so I hope I am not spoiling things that are not at least insider knowledge for future plans.

But on the other hand, I think it is relevant to the matter.

Sounds great. Like that WestCOT project!

Oh wait. Disney never built that like they promised, did they?

But they got their $500 million infrastructure bond, free parking structure, and resort district zoning with previously non-existent hotel caps on other peoples property!

By the way, Just got back from Disneyland. Had a great time.

OK, I was not paying much attention at the time, so someone else will have to verify this. But it is my understanding that Westcott was killed by the neighbors complaining. I think Anaheim HOME might be able to elaborate on that. Not all Disney deals are undone by Disney, it is unfair to blame them on this one.

I never knew that Disney PROMISED WestCOT to anyone, I know they proposed it, and talked about it, including showing models of the project. But some citizens of Anaheim had a problem with the project and their complaints helped bring the project to an end. Sounds somewhat similar to the current issue with SunCal, in where a group of citizens (SOAR) have made enough noise that it looks like the project will be cancelled.

Now, have their been problems with Disney's California Adventure (DCA), oh yes, and I am known for keeping tract of the history of the park and all its problems and issues. The vast majority of which came from senior Management of the Walt Disney Company. The good news, ALL of the senior folks involved in the design and building of DCA have left the company, and new management has a much different outlook and opinions to the place. Currently they are working on a new attraction for the Paradise Pier section, called Toy Story Mania! opening Summer of 2008. A state of the art attraction that is family friendly and should be very popular, plus working on the theming in the area at the same time.

The other project being worked on is "The Wonderful World of Color" (working title) a water fountain show for the lake in the Paradise Pier section. Currently they have temporary equipment out in the lake and have been testing effects and other issues at night after the park closes to the general public. The lake is currently scheduled to be drained early in 2008 to install equipment and infrastructure for the show, which looks like will premiere in 2009. And FYI, both of these projects have already been approved and are not part of the $1.2 Billion that was just approved.

Glad you had a good time at Disneyland yesterday, it was an interesting day, with the unofficial Bats Day guests in the park (basically Goth fans who come to the park) and a power outage around 5 PM that closed many of the attractions on the east side of the park.

That was just a single factor, but as the current contrvoersy shows, Disney isn't easily deterred when it sets its corporate mind on something.

This goes to Disney/SOAR's "a deal is a deal" mantra -- the implication that Disney kept it's end of the bargain, when it did not.

The whole Resort District deal was made in the context of Disney building WestCOT -- and while Disney was playing its game of "maybe we'll just build the 2nd gate in Long Beach if the city doesn't give us what we want."

Does anyone think this "deal" with Disney would have been made in exchange for California Adventure?

Glad you had a good time at Disneyland yesterday, it was an interesting day, with the unofficial Bats Day guests in the park (basically Goth fans who come to the park)

They were interesting, to put it one way. My daughters keep asking who all the scary people were and why they were dressed like that, pierced like that. My wife and I especially enjoyed having to keep out two little ones' attention focused away while to scantily-clad lesbian goths made out in line behind us at Space Mountain (although one was androgynous enough that they might of thought she was a boy). It really made us "feel the Magic."

David:

Disney was playing a shuck-and-jive game with Anaheim, trying to spook them into giving them the deal Disney wanted out of fear Disney would build the 2nd gate in long Beach.

You may recall during the WestCOT days how Disney had enlisted a local congressman to lobby for federal funds for on I-5 off-ramp that would go directly into two massive parking structures.

BTW the way, those all sound like great additions to the park. Now tell me how they would be stopped by a condo project on the fridge of the resort district?

You guys are really starting to drift again, although I admit the scatilly clad lesbian thing was somewhat interesting.

RP:

I don't think we're drifting (except for the lesbian thing). SOAR advocates giving Disney effective control over the Resort District by freezing the zoning in place in perpetuity and requiring any zone change to go to a city-wide vote. How is that not a relevant issue?

Of course, Westcot's downsizing into California Adventure didn't happen in a context-free zone:

Here's an interesting article on the Westcot-to-California-Adventure endgame.

So while Disney didn't live up to its initial Westcot promises, it's not as if Michael Eisner woke up one morning and decided to cancel the thing out of spite.

Thus speaketh Mercutio: a plague on both your houses.

Thou art making worm's meat of the body politick.

Biff:

The point is the Disney/SOAR side's mantras of "a deal is a deal" and "Disney kept its part of the deal" means the Resort District formation, $500 million bond, etc were given in exchange for California Adventure, and they most certainly were not.

It's disingenuous for Disney/SOAR to make that claim.

"WESTCOT Promises". Seriously, can anyone find us a link where Michael Eisner said in 1992 "I promise to build WE