« Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- April 29, 2007 | Main | Northern Calif. Dem unable to control OC Toll Road »

April 29, 2007


Anaheim H.O.M.E.

Councilman Sidhu names in his newsletter many of the Disneyland puppets who back in 1996 supported the $93 million gift of taxpayers' funds to build the huge Disneyland parking stucture on Disney owned land. In Anaheim, where money wins elections, Disney has the best supporters you can buy.

Jose M

"Disney has the best supporters you can buy"

It reality it all goes down to that statement. But it's not intentional. Voters who have reaped the benefits of disney and enjoyed the fruits of Disneyland will undoubtably support the intiative and deny special treatment for another housing developer.

Karl Rove

Harry Sidhu and Curt Pringle have demonstrated to the world that they can't stand to be on the short end of a vote. It is unfortunate that the republican establishment even gives them the time of day. Yes, Disney is big business, and business should be supported. But property rights are a fundamental core value of the republican party and to ignore a landowner's rights to develop his/her property to maximize its value, is sanctimoniously disturbing.

Sidhu and Pringle do not have the core value principles that it takes to be called conservative republicans and I would hope that the republican establishment wakes up to this very soon.


Karl Rove:

You can say what you want about this issue, but I would find you hard pressed to find one other person who would agree with your stance on Pringle's political ideology. One must have a pretty short term memory to disregard the numerous conservative policy issues Pringle successfully spearheaded during his time in office.


Karl - This area is and has already been zoned for MANY years as non residential ....it was part of a deal made many years ago....by which Disney contributed millions towards housing. NO housing belongs in the resort area. First of all NONE of the Disney folks will be able to buy one of those houses (even of they are affordable) and secondly anyone who does buy there will be complaining in years to come, about the traffic, noise etc.....just like Cost Mesa Fairgrounds...people buy their houses next to the fair grounds and then complain about it! It is a resort area - it should stay that way...besides Anaheim has more then it's fair share of affordable housing.

Karl Rove

The issue is not how long the area has been zoned. The issue is whether or not a landowner has the right to develop his/her property as they see fit.

The law allows for a process by which landowners can request zoning and General Plan changes to support their desires. This process was followed and the approving body, the city council, accepted the zone change on a 3-2 vote.

Say all you want about Pringle and Sidhu, but my statement still stands. The legal process was followed, Pringle and Sidhu did not like the outcome, and they have thrown away their republican principles because of it.

Anaheim H.O.M.E.

Anaheim enjoys "the fruits of Disneyland".

Some of the "fruits":

Thousands of pounds of toxic fireworks smoke over 200 nights each year.

One of the highest asthma, and respiratory cancer rates anywhere.


SunCal aquired the rights to this land under the current "Resort Zone" regulations. They made a business decision to challange the zoning. Most developers who undertake this sort of transaction usually have some conditonal agreements with the previous landowner. I believe most cities make it very clear that no landowner or city entity can promise future variance to zoning issues.

Bottom line is SunCal made this proposal with the knowledge that granting of a zoning variance was not "guaranteed" or an "existing right" of the previous or future landowners. Under our existing laws which are designed to protect our investments, a landowner does not have the right to build anything they want. Otherwise we'd have liquor stores and bars next to schools and churches. Not to mention factories and plants next to parks.

Although in thinking this over, maybe SunCal somehow had received a "promise" of support from city officials? Otherwise why would they have moved forward with this type of proposal?

I don't profess to know Anahiem well, but does anyone know what business/political relationships SunCal has with City Council and consulting firms involved with this transaction?



What you are talking about is the acquisition of property based on contingencies - such as entitlement approvals. Maybe this is what SunCal actually has. Or maybe an option is all that SunCal has in place. It would indeed be odd for a developer to risk the purchase without future guarantees. And yet, the swing vote (Lucille Kring) only came on board in December - so go figure.



You say "NO housing belongs in the resort area."

Please explain why?


SunCal optioned the property.

Keep in mind it was the City of Anaheim that commissioned a study as to whether residential development could be included in outlying areas of the resort district. It was a city initiative.

The Disney coalition acts as if Moses brought the Anaheim Resort District specific plan down from Mt. Sinai, and to consider any change at all would incur divine retribution that would smite Anaheim's finances and the regional economy.

Even the U.S. Constitution gets amended from time to time.

Karl Rove

Well said Jubal.


Pringle and Sidhu should be applauded not criticized for supporting a zoning plan established for proper reasons and purposes. Their council votes and support of the referendum show core values and principles that serve to protect the future of Anaheim and services to the taxpayers.


Curious - I was pretty clear in my first post why I disapproved of housing in the resort area....Anaheim HOME proves my point. Lets all move to Anaheim, right by Disneyland and then bitch about the fireworks, the freeways, the traffic and the noise. Let's continue to live there and complain that we and our kids are being exposed to toxins and cancer...all due to Disneyland. I suspect that MUCH of that was already there when HOME decided to live in Anaheim. That is in a nutshell why I believe there should be no housing in that area. It just does not belong there.


It doesn't belong there because it doesn't belong there.

Good reasoning, Flowerszz.

Real Taxpayerconcerns

"Pringle and Sidhu should be applauded not criticized for supporting a zoning plan established for proper reasons and purposes. Their council votes and support of the referendum show core values and principles that serve to protect the future of Anaheim and services to the taxpayers."

It's one thing to vote against a zoning change. That's how local government works. Some zoning requests get approved, some get turned down.

I can even understand the referendum. I think Pringle, Sidhu and that whole crew are going waaaaay overboard, but at least it just targets a single, specific council action.

But for Pringle, Sidhu and Disney to support an initiative that puts any resort district zone change to a city-wide vote is insane. There is absolutely nothing principled or conservative about that. It's ends-justifies-the-means reasoning. They're just wrong, and supporting it makes Pringle and Sidhu no different than those no-growthers in Yorba Linda and Newport Beach.


Curious - What part of my concerns do you not get? Can you read? Or do you only skip to the last sentence?


Sorry. A more complete summary of your stated opposition:

- People will complain about Disneyland.

- It doesn't belong there because it doesn't belong there.

Very compelling.


Hey you asked...those are my thoughts. People will move there and then complain YES, and it is a very reasonable concern...IMO.


In that case, we'd rarely approve any housing, because people always complain.


Happens more & more today for sure. It always amazes me when people buy a house lets just say next to the freeway - and then complain about the freeway noise, or the freeway toxins. All the while they chose to live there. While this is not most likely on the top of Disney's concerns, it is certainly valid to be considered. Especially with remarks like the ones from Anaheim HOME.


Anyone looked into who SunCal and Disney have contributed to during this period? You should of course not find any SunCal because of the item before council, but someone who knows Anahiem should check...


just asking - there are contribution limits, they can all give up to $1600and it wont effect any council members ability to vote on an issue. Any smart business should give to their electeds....common sense.


In most cities I believe an elected official may not vote on an item if money or services have been donated/collected/pleged or some other debt has been established within a specified amount of time 30/60/90 days. I'll check the rules in Anaheim...


Actually - most cities do not have an ordinance like that. If the electeds happen sit on other boards, like OCTA for example, they do have a limit of $249 or $250. This limit does not prohibit the company from giving the max $1600 in Anaheim however, if they give more then the $249, then the elected is prohibited from voting on their matters before the other boards - not the City Council.

The comments to this entry are closed.