Do Anaheim Residents Want To Subsidize More Hotels?

Dave McKibben of the Los Angeles Times wrote a valuable article on Tuesday about the market for luxury hotels in the Anaheim Resort District, focusing on a proposed residential development within the resort district: the site of a closed Toys 'R' Us on Harbor between Orangewood and Chapman.

McKibben quotes Derek Baak, the developer of the project:

"If the city is waiting for a luxury hotel-condo project on that site, who knows how long the land will sit there vacant?" he said. "You just can't build a hotel now without some kind of subsidy." With more condos added in his new plan, "the condos subsidize the hotel."

Now, to listen to the Disney/SOAR people opposing this project, as well as Parc Anaheim and SunCal's Platinum Pointe, you'd think the resort district was dying for more hotels -- not only that, but the financial future of Anaheim depends upon building a hotel on the SunCal-optioned property. See for yourself the comments made by Disney/SOAR folks at the Feb. 13 and April 24 Anaheim Council meetings. [Full disclosure: I am a member of the SunCal consulting team for Platinum Pointe]

But above, you have someone actually trying build a hotel/condo project, and he's having to scale back the hotel portion of the project to make it pencil out. Apparently his financials haven't been heeding the Disney/SOAR line.

Although Disney is now officially opposed to this Harbor Boulevard project, less than 10 months than a year ago Disney supported it. At the August 22, 2006 Anaheim Council hearing, a Disney spokesman told the council:

"The developments of which the speaker before me spoke of is one as an example where you have a quality resort component and on top you have a residential component.  Our position has traditionally been against residential developments within the resort district but we need to look at each development and base it on its merits.  And within the plan and the overlays that Staff's presenting, we think presents a quality product that we could support especially in the outlining areas of the resort district."

Oh well -- what's consistency matter when you have a resort district to control!

Comments

[well stated, Mayor!]

This is a "valuable" article? Hotels requiring city subsidies or incentives...what a novel concept! Then again, not so much. While the hotel market isn't currently robust, there will always be a need for both upscale and boutique hotels in cities that, like Anaheim, are dependent upon tourism. The quote you cite from a Disney spokesman as a sample of inconsistency is actually completely consistent with what we have heard from the company both at that August 22, 2006 council meeting and when two members of the council were attempting to arrive at a compromise on the mobile home property, a compromise which we hear would have provided a hotel and retail on the front of the property and residential on the back portion. Unfortunately, SunCal chose to dismiss this compromise out of hand and instead continue its internecine campaign to the detriment of all Anaheim residents. Really, isn't it time to turn this topic over to someone a little less biased, or at least someone without a significant financial interest in its outcome?

[Anaheimster]

You miss Jubal's point. Government subsidies are given to enterprises that cannot succeed in the marketplace without them. In other words, when there is insufficient market demand for that good or service.

SOAR, Disney and their allies on the council insist there a great demand for more hotels in the resort district.

If that is so, why is it necessary for the city to grant multi-million dollar subsidies in order for new resort district hotels to operate? The need to subsidize new hotels undercut the SOAR-Disney claim of a sharp market demand for them.

As for that Disney spokesman's statement: last August Disney supported the Harbor Blvd. project. A few months ago, Disney switched to opposition to it, even though the project hadn't changed. Inconsistent is exactly right.

As for "turning the topic" over to some who isn't biased: to whom? I'd guesstimate Jubal writes 90% of the posts on this blog. If he didn't write about this issue, it wouldn't be covered here at all. And perhaps that's your real purpose.

Furthermore, since when has this site NOT been biased? If you're going to level cheap, intellectually lazy accusations against Jubal's person, shouldn't you at least put your real name to it?

[Nevil Anderson - Brea, CA]

Mr. "well stated, Mayor!" (or is it just Mr. Mayor?):

THE DISNEY FOLKS HAVE A GREAT ARGUMENT IF THEY WOULD JUST MAKE IT!

Instead you clowns start to spell out a decent argument and then accuse Jubal of bias. YOU JUST CAN'T RESIST. I'm not sure I've read a pro-Disney comment or post on this site that hasn't played the "Jubal-is-biased" card. He has disclosed that he is a political consultant thousand times. Half the people who post or comment on this site are probably inside politics... That's why it's so good! We're certainly not going to get this stuff from reading the Orange County Register.

Your inability to just let your argument stand on its own is either a sign that you're desperate or a sign that this local blog has some influence. Probably both.

If you don't like the open-style, free-flowing debate on this blog, don't read it. Start your own blog and begin each post with, "Even though I am the Mayor of the City of Anaheim and have a political stake in the outcome of the Disney-SunCal issue, this is what I think..."

[STAM]

Jubal and his developer lackeys are playing the short term card in planning. When you set aside an area for future resort development, it means just that. It is to be developed in the future, but if we allow these developers to come in and rape our Anaheim Resort Zone by putting in any form of housing that will necesitate an increased infrastructure that I do not see Suncal or the other developers stepping up to pay for the schools, sewers, police, and fire personnel that will be required if housing is allowed in the resort zone. Thus, the taxpayers of Anaheim will be forced to ante up to pay for all of these infrastructure upgrades should housing be allowed in the resort zone. Housing in the long term simply does not pay for what will be required to support that housing. With 9,500 homes planned for the Platinium Triangle, we need to protect our Anaheim Resort Tax Base. It will be the Anaheim Resort Zone that will subsidize our housing, not the other way around as these developers would like you to believe.

[redperegrine]

"I do not see Suncal or the other developers stepping up to pay for the schools, sewers, police, and fire personnel that will be required if housing is allowed in the resort zone."

Um, STAM the project would pay large amounts of property tax, and of course the school district will assess its fees for new residential development. The real snag would be if SunCal project were in a redevelopment project area - then the property tax increment would go into the redevelopment coffers - not the City.

[Gail Eastman]

Create a visison to change a tired looking hodge podge along major streets into a world class resort atmosphere. Create a resort district which restricts future land uses to tourist oriented only. Invest huge amounts of privaate & public money with an eye to long term economic grains for both. All that might have been considered a big gamble a decads ago.

Not today when the convention and tourist business is better than ever, setting records with continued growth expected plus city revenue from the district increasing with that growth.

Does that sound like bad planning?
Does the term "don't fix it when it's not broken" ring any bells?

It's hard to come up with a good vision like that, but even harder to stick with it when someone dangles an attractive incentive to make a change!

After looking at all the facts and hearing testimony the city planning commissioners all came to the same conclusion that making a general plan change to allow housing in the resort district as presented was a bad idea for the citizens of Anaheim. It would cost us all more in the long term. Their recomendation to the city council was; DO NOT make such a change.

Ask yourself why would three of the city council members choose to ignore the advice of their own planning commissioners who are charged with reviewing and making independent decisions regarding the best land uses in the city?

It appears that a large number, at least 20,000 plus residents agree with the planning commissioners and don't believe it's a good idea to change courses from the vision of the original planners of the resort district by making land use changes in that small segment which produces such significant return.